CCPR/C/117/D/2493/2014 whether such a risk exists.24 In the present case, the Committee observes that the Danish Immigration Service refused the author’s asylum request, the author appealed that decision and the Refugee Appeals Board reviewed his case. 8.7 The Committee is aware of the existence of concerns regarding the continuing presence of Al-Shebaab in southern and central Somalia.25 However, the Committee notes that, in examining the author’s asylum request, the Refugee Appeals Board reviewed the author’s allegations, making a specific and individual risk assessment and taking into due consideration the information concerning the situation in the Qoryooley area. In addition, the Committee notes that the author challenges the assessment of evidence by the Refugee Appeals Board and the factual conclusions that the Board reached without however adducing any supporting element that would demonstrate that these were manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary.26 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm to the author, as contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant.27 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Somalia would not violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 24 25 26 27 12 See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; and No. 1957/2010, Z.H. v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, for example, “UNHCR position on returns to southern and central Somalia” update 1, UNHCR, May 2016, para. 6. See communication No. 2347/2014, K.G. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 March 2016, para. 7.4. See the Committee’s general comment No. 31, para. 12. See also communication No. 2327/2014, Y v. Canada, Views adopted on 10 March 2016, para. 10.6.