CCPR/C/114/D/2343/2014 incompatible with article 2 of the Covenant, and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee further notes the State party’s objections to the admissibility of the communication as regards the author’s claims under article 9, as he reportedly tried to use the Committee as an appellate body to re-evaluate the facts and circumstances of the asylum claim that was adjudicated by national authorities. The State party also submits, as regards the author’s statement that one member of Ultras Ahlawy had been killed by the police while another member of the group had been arrested and charged with having participated in the Port Said massacre, that this information has not been supported by evidence. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the author’s claim that he would risk an arrest is contradicted by the author’s own statement that he and the other founders were not well-known figures. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that none of the current information on Egypt gives any basis for assuming that members of Ultras Ahlawy are generally at any particular risk of being subjected to abuse from the authorities or from supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Committee further notes that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board found that the information on the arrests of other members of Ultras Ahlawy in connection with disturbances at an airport does not indicate any risk of persecution of the author, personally. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claim and consequently finds that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 Concerning the author’s claim under article 19, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim is insufficiently substantiated because he submitted that he had not previously had any conflicts with the Egyptian authorities, and that he had only availed himself of his right to freedom of expression. In this connection, the Committee notes that the State party has argued that author’s claim under article 19 is inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant because article 19 does not have extraterritorial application, and that the author’s allegations of a violation of this provision do not rest on any treatment that he has suffered in Denmark, but rather on consequences that he will allegedly suffer if returned to Egypt. The Committee also notes that the author has not provided further information to substantiate his claim, and therefore it considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim for purposes of admissibility, and that, accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant should be held inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation. However, the Committee considers that the author has adequately explained the reasons why he fears that forcible return to Egypt would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that this part of the communication, raising issues under article 7 of the Covenant, has been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. 7.8 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the communication is admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant and proceeds with its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 11