CCPR/C/119/D/2473/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all the effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol on the ground that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case under articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant. The Committee notes the author’s contentions that he has established a prima facie case on account of his fear of persecution by Hamas owing to his previous persecution and imprisonment and his conflict with his father-in-law. 7.5 The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of 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”. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high. 4 The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence specifying that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 5 7.6 The Committee notes that the Board thoroughly examined the author’s claim and considered his personal and family circumstances. It found that neither the author nor his family had ever been involved in any political activities, that the author had not provided any credible reasons for his conflict with his wife’s family, that his statements on several crucial points had been inconsistent and vague and that he had failed to give a coherent and logical account of why he was allegedly persecuted by Hamas. On the basis of personal interviews with the author, the Board concluded that the author’s statements about his conflict with Hamas during his employment at the university were fabricated, that his claims about potential attacks by his wife’s family were not credible and that the author would not be at an actual and personal risk of persecution by Hamas if he returned to Gaza. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that it had reviewed the general situation in Gaza on the basis of the constantly updated country background information and has not found indications that the author would be at risk if returned there. The author has not explained why the decision of the Board would be manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary in nature. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim that his forcible removal would amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant and finds it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. For the same reasons, it finds the claim under article 9 of the Covenant to be inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4 5 4 See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communication No. 1957/2010, Z.H. v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3.