CCPR/C/129/D/2970/2017 his aunt in Canada or with his father in the United States. The Committee is of the view that the author has not sufficiently demonstrated that the examination of her application for asylum by the Canadian authorities was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.19 The Committee considers that, despite the author’s objections to the factual findings of the State party’s authorities, the information before it does not prove that those findings are manifestly unreasonable. 20 Without prejudice to the continuing responsibility of the State party to take into account the current situation in the country to which the author would be deported, and without underestimating legitimate concerns about the general human rights situation in Mauritania,21 the Committee therefore finds that the author’s claims under articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated and are, as a result, inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. 19 20 21 8 The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. See, inter alia, A v. Denmark, para. 7.4. R.G. et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014), para. 7.7. See, for example, CCPR/C/MRT/CO/2, and A/HRC/34/54/Add.1. GE.21-00740