CCPR/C/117/D/2493/2014 ethnic group returning to that country.3 Furthermore, the Court stated that it had never excluded the possibility that a general situation of violence in a specific country of origin would be of a sufficient level of intensity as to mean that any removal to that country would necessarily breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court would adopt such an approach only in the most extreme cases of general violence, where there was a real risk of ill-treatment simply by virtue of an individual’s presence in the area. Where it is established that an applicant is a member of a group systematically exposed to a practice of ill-treatment in his country of origin, the Court has considered that the protection of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights enters into play, and it will not then insist that the applicant show the existence of further special distinguishing features to substantiate an assertion that he would be at risk of ill-treatment on return to his country of origin.4 4.3 The State party further refers to the Court’s judgment in Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, where the Court found that the removal of the applicants, Somali nationals, to Mogadishu would be contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.5 The State party observes that article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights is very similar to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and that the Court employed very specific criteria when examining the case of Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom. In particular, it assessed whether the parties to the conflict were either employing methods and tactics of warfare which increased the risk of civilian casualties or were directly targeting civilians; whether the use of such methods and/or tactics was widespread among the parties to the conflict; whether the fighting was localized or widespread; and the number of civilians killed, injured and displaced as a result of the fighting. The State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board also does not exclude the possibility that, due to random, generalized violence, the general security situation in a given country may be of such a serious and extreme nature that it would breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to return an asylum seeker to that country and that, for this reason alone, an asylum seeker would satisfy the conditions of residence under section 7 of the Aliens Act. 4.4 In the light of the above, with reference to rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his claim under article 7 of the Covenant, as it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the author is in danger of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Somalia.6 Thus, his claim under article 7 of the Covenant is manifestly unfounded and should be considered inadmissible. 4.5 The author has further merely claimed that his return to Somalia would breach article 9 of the Covenant. The author has failed to establish in any way how he risks treatment contrary to article 9 of the Covenant if returned to Somalia. The State party submits that it is not aware of any findings made by the Committee that article 9 of the Covenant can be deemed to have extraterritorial effect. It notes that the European Court of Human Rights held, in its judgment of 17 January 2012 in Othman v. the United Kingdom,7 concerning article 5 of the Convention (similar to article 9 of the Covenant), that “a contracting State would be in violation of article 5 if it removed an applicant to a State 3 4 5 6 7 4 Ibid., para. 125. Ibid., paras. 115-117; in this respect, the State party also refers to the Court’s judgment in F.H. v. Sweden, application No. 32621/06, judgment of 20 January 2009, para. 90. Applications Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, judgment of 28 June 2011, para. 241. The State party refers to the Committee’s Views in communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2. Application No. 8139/09, para. 233.