CCPR/C/114/D/2343/2014 8.2 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. 16 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal17 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.18 8.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice,19 and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists.20 The Committee notes the assessment made by the State party’s authorities, namely, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, including the information by the author that he had been one of the founders of Ultras Ahlawy and that he had been in charge of the group’s information technology. The Committee, however, notes that the State party has not found that, solely by being one of the founders of Ultras Ahlawy group and in charge of the group’s information technology, and considering that the group was originally an apolitical fan club which later developed into one with a political objective, the author has developed such a high profile as to be placed at personal risk of persecution in case of return to Egypt. In this connection, the State party referred to the statement of the author that he had neither been present during the Port Said incident nor during any of the other clashes between the authorities and demonstrators, therefore considering that the author did not face personal risk if returned to Egypt. The State party made its assessment on the basis of author’s failure to present evidence that he would risk persecution by the Muslim Brotherhood, that he would be in a position of conflict relevant under asylum law vis-à-vis the military, police security forces or other authorities in case of his return to Egypt, or that the author or his mother had been contacted by the Egyptian authorities to look for the author. 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s assertions of evidence presented to substantiate his allegations, namely, a threatening letter sent to his mother’s house, pictures of Egyptians who have been killed and tortured for the free determination of political status and pursuit of the social and cultural development of Ultras Ahlawy in Egypt without risking persecution, and various articles explaining how the current regime enacts laws empowering the authorities to control social media for Ultras Ahlawy, including by attempts to hack the group’s Facebook page and shutting down its webpage. The Committee further notes the author’s assertions that the Egyptian authorities have searched his mother’s house several times after he was ordered to return to Egypt. The State party 16 17 18 19 20 12 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See, for example, communications No. 2007/2010, J.J. M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See, for example, communications No. 2007/2010, J.J. M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See, inter alia, ibid. and communication No. 541/1993, Errol Simms v. Jamaica, inadmissibility decision adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3.