CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under 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 notes the author’s statement that decisions by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board are not subject to appeal and that therefore domestic remedies have been exhausted. This has not been challenged by the State party. Therefore, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted as required under article 5 (2) (b). 6.4 The Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim, for purposes of admissibility, that his deportation to Afghanistan would violate his right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the Covenant, and particularly his right to work as an interpreter for the United States forces in Afghanistan. The Committee therefore declares that part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 With regard to the author’s claim under article 7, the Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of such claim for lack of sufficient substantiation. The Committee notes, however, that the author has adequately explained, for the purposes of admissibility, the reasons for fearing that his return to Afghanistan would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant, based on his past experience as an interpreter for the United States forces in Afghanistan. The Committee therefore finds the author’s claim under article 7 admissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 In the light of the above, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 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. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s argument that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would risk being subjected to ill-treatment by the Taliban and the local population for having worked for five years as an interpreter for the United States military forces in Afghanistan, which would immediately garner him classification as a traitor. He claims that he received several threats while in Afghanistan from the Taliban, from his cousins and from the local population. The author also invokes a DIS report that recognizes that interpreters working for international forces can be at risk of being targeted by the Taliban. The State party has challenged the admissibility and substance of that claim, and considered the author’s statements regarding the alleged threats received before his departure from Afghanistan to be inconsistent and implausible on several grounds. That same conclusion was also reached by the RAB by decision of 24 June 2013. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31(2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, 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, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (see ibid., para. 12). The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal9 and that 9 8 See, among others, communications No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2, and No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2.