CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014 6.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims with respect to articles 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant should be held inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation, as well as the State party’s objections with regard to the extraterritorial application of articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant. However, the Committee considers that the author has adequately explained the reasons for which he fears that his forcible return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant and that he has provided relevant documentation in support of his claims. The Committee is, therefore, of the opinion that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under article 7 with plausible arguments in support thereof. As for the allegations concerning a violation of articles 18 and 19, the Committee considers that they cannot be dissociated from the author’s allegations under article 7, which must be determined on the merits. 6.5 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that, under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the communication is admissible insofar as it raises issues relating to articles 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information received, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant. 10 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal11 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.12 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.13 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claims that he faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant if he is returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, due to being a Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran sympathizer and to his activities distributing flyers with political content prior to his departure, which is allegedly known by the Iranian authorities. In addition, he has a tattoo of Zartosht, which will lead the Iranian authorities to consider that he has converted from Islam to Zoroastrianism. According to the author, this, together with the fact that he left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally and will be sent back without a legal travel document, puts him at risk of being apprehended and tortured by the Iranian authorities upon arrival. 7.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of States 10 11 12 13 See general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 12. See communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; communication No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; communication No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; communication No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and communication No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; and communication No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. 9