CCPR/C/122/D/2595/2015 be brought before a military court if he failed to report for duty. The Committee notes that the authenticity of the call-up papers was not verified by the authorities of the State party. The Committee notes the criteria presented by the State party for the verification of the authenticity of documents produced during asylum proceedings and notes that, in the present case, there was a prospect that such verification of the call-up papers produced by the author could have led to a different assessment of the evidence in the case, namely that the author may face charges in Egypt for failure to perform military service. The Committee considers that it therefore cannot exclude the possibility that the author may face criminal charges in Egypt for having failed to report for military service. 7.6 The Committee notes that, as stated in the memorandum provided by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the potential penalties imposed on draft evaders in Egypt may be lengthy. The Committee, however, recalls its jurisprudence in Ch.H.O v. Canada, in which it found that the deportation of the author to his country of origin, where it was foreseeable that he would face a sentence of imprisonment for refusal to perform military service, would not amount to a violation of the Covenant, unless it was substantiated that the prosecution and imprisonment would amount to irreparable harm.10 In the present case, the Committee notes that the author has claimed that he would be at risk of torture if he were to be prosecuted and imprisoned in Egypt. The Committee notes that the author has not provided any further personal information or substantiation of this alleged risk. The Committee further notes that country reports indicate that prison conditions in Egypt are harsh and that inmates may be subjected to severe abuses by the authorities, including torture and enforced disappearance, particularly in the case of members or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that impunity for serious abuses remains in place. 11 In the present case, however, the Committee observes that the author has not alleged that he is a member or supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, or of any other political or religious association or organization that may put him at risk of ill-treatment in his country of origin, nor has he provided any information that indicates that he would be perceived as being affiliated with such a group. He has also not provided any other information that indicates that he would face a real and personal risk to life or a risk of torture or of ill-treatment if returned to Egypt. The Committee therefore finds that the author has failed to demonstrate that a potential conviction for draft evasion and subsequent imprisonment would amount to irreparable harm, such as that contemplated in article 7 of the Covenant. 7.7 The Committee notes that the author has also claimed that he would be at risk of forced military service if returned to Egypt. However, it also notes that, according to the memorandum provided by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal document of 18 June 2009 referred to by the author in his complaint, citizens are only eligible for military service as long as they are under the age of 30. The Committee notes that, at the time of his potential removal to Egypt, the author will be 30 years of age. The Committee further notes that, according to information provided in the memorandum of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the common practice in cases where defendants are sentenced to imprisonment is to dismiss them from the armed forces upon their release from prison. The Committee additionally notes that the author has asserted that his brother died while in military service and that he has not refuted the State party’s argument that he may be exempted from military service on those grounds. The Committee therefore concludes that it has not been demonstrated that the author would be at risk of forced military service if returned to his country of origin. 7.8 Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the removal of the author to Egypt would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Egypt would not violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 10 11 8 Ch.H.O v. Canada, (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012). See, for example, Human Rights Watch, World Report 2017, p. 233. See also Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2015/16: The State of the World’s Human Rights, pp. 145–149, and A.S.G.M v. Denmark (CCPR/C/121/D/2612/2015), para. 7.5.