CCPR/C/117/D/2464/2014 sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his claims under article 7 of the Covenant.23 6.5 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the communication is admissible as far as it raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and it proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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 when 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. 24 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 25 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.26 7.3 The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party’s authorities and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 27 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of being subjected to torture and to inhuman or degrading treatment in the event of his return to Somalia owing to the following cumulative factors: (a) his family’s conflicts in Somalia in the past; (b) the family’s affiliation with the minority clan of Bagadi; (c) his lack of family and social network in Somalia; (d) the risk of becoming an internally displaced person; (e) his health issues; and (f) the risk of forced recruitment by al-Shabaab. It also takes note of the author’s claim that the Refugee Appeals Board, in upholding the rejection by the Danish Immigration Board of his asylum application, failed to assess his individual circumstances and their cumulative effect on the risk of being exposed to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in case of his return to Somalia. 7.5 The Committee further takes notes of the State party’s argument that the domestic decision-makers found that the author would not be presently at risk of being subjected to persecution justifying asylum or protection status in the event of his return to Somalia. In particular, the Refugee Appeals Board concluded that the individual circumstances relied upon by the author, including his language skills, clan affiliation and lack of social network, 23 24 25 26 27 10 See, for example, communication No. 2347/2014, K.G. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 March 2016, para. 6.4. 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. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.3; and No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2. See, for example, communications No. 2007/2010, X. 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, for example, X. v. Denmark (note 26 above), para. 9.2; P.T. v. Denmark (note 25 above), para. 7.3; X. v. Sweden (note 26 above), para. 5.18; and K.G. v. Denmark, (note 23 above), para. 7.4.