CCPR/C/122/D/2595/2015 2 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee, however, considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 7 for the purposes of admissibility. In the absence of any other challenge to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it concerns the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that upon removal from the State party to Egypt, he would be at risk of being sentenced to two to seven years of imprisonment for having failed to perform military service, and that he would be at risk of torture and at risk of forced military service, in violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that the author has failed to substantiate these claims and that the Refugee Appeals Board thoroughly reviewed the author’s claims and concluded that he was not in need of asylum or international protection. 7.3 The Committee notes that in his communication before the Committee, the author has not invoked the grounds that he would be at risk of harm from the Muslim Brotherhood or under suspicion by the authorities of being affiliated with the organization  grounds that were invoked by the author before the domestic authorities. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties “not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant” (para. 12). The Committee has indicated in its jurisprudence that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 8 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence in which it has stated that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 9 7.5 In the present case, the Committee observes that the author claims that he would be at risk of being sentenced to up to seven years of imprisonment for failure to perform military service and at risk of being subjected to torture. It notes the State party’s argument that during the asylum proceedings, the author made vague and inconsistent statements on several points relating to events in his country of origin, and that elements of his statements appeared to be fabricated or unlikely. Specifically, the Committee notes that the author provided inconsistent statements regarding the loss of his passport, stating in one interview that he had handed it over to the Italian authorities, who had not returned it, while stating in another interview that the passport had been kept by an agent in Libya. The Committee further notes that the author gave inconsistent statements as to how he managed to evade passport control checks in Cairo and as to the financing of his travel from Egypt to Denmark. The Committee notes that these inconsistencies raise doubts as to the author’s credibility. Additionally, the Committee notes that the date on which the author was issued with an Egyptian passport remains in dispute between the parties. The Committee therefore cannot exclude the possibility that the author was issued with the passport when he was under the age of enlistment for compulsory military service. The Committee also notes that the author submitted a copy of his military service call-up papers, dated 11 April 2011, to the Immigration Service during his asylum proceedings, in which it was noted that he might 8 9 See X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2; and X. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. See K. v. Denmark, (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.4. 7