CCPR/C/114/D/2389/2014 6.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee also notes the author’s statement that decisions by the Danish refugee appeals board are not subject to appeal and that domestic remedies have therefore been exhausted. This assertion has not been challenged by the State party. Therefore, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that the decision of the refugee appeals board of 18 March 2014, by which it denied his asylum application, was discriminatory in violation of article 26 of the Covenant insofar as his brother had been granted refugee status under similar circumstances. In this connection, the Committee notes that the author has failed to demonstrate that the decision rejecting his refugee status was discriminatory in that it was made on the basis of a ground prohibited under article 26 of the Covenant.20 The Committee is therefore of the opinion that this allegation is not substantiated and is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 With respect to the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the author’s allegation under article 7, on the basis that the author has failed to substantiate that he would be at personal risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Committee notes that the author bases his allegations on the fact that he was born and raised in refugee camps in Iraq known to be linked to Kurdish opposition groups, that he is a member of the Kurdistan Freedom Party and that his father is a member of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan. The Committee also notes that the author alleges that he has no identification documents and does not speak Farsi, which would put him at risk of persecution by the Iranian authorities. The Committee therefore considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, that the facts in the communication raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant that should be considered on their merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee considers it necessary to bear in mind the State party’s obligation under article 2 of the Covenant to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, including in the application of its processes for the expulsion of non-citizens.21 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.22 7.3 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 where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm. The Committee also recalls that the risk must be personal and that 20 21 22 See communication 1547/2007, Hamida v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 March 2010, para. 7.4. See general comment No. 20 of the Committee, para. 9. See communication No. 1763/2008, Ernest Sigman Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.2. 11