CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013 that the author had worked for the Uthayan for several years, during which time he had been repeatedly attacked because of his work. 7.6 The Committee takes note that the State party’s authorities, after examining the evidence provided for by the author and reports by States and non-governmental organizations providing information on the situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka at the time of the examination of his request, refused his application since they considered that that the author had failed to substantiate the real risk he would be exposed to if removed to Sri Lanka, because he failed to provide reliable evidence to corroborate his account and because being a Tamil from the north and a failed asylum seeker would not, by itself, expose him to a real and personal risk. The Committee considers that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factor that the State party authorities failed to properly take into account. The Committee considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, he has failed to show that they were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous or amounted to a denial of justice. In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author would face a personal and real risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 (1) or 7 of the Covenant if he were returned to Sri Lanka. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Sri Lanka would not violate his rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. letter by the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission on a complaint made by the author’s mother indicating that SLA officers had come to her home on 27 September 2013 and had asked about her son’s whereabouts. 15