CCPR/C/117/D/2464/2014 had not been of such nature as to justify residence under section 7 of the Aliens Act. It also found that the fact that his family had had to leave Somalia in 1992 as a consequence of its affiliation with Siad Barre could not lead to a different assessment; that the incident had taken place a long time ago and that the author had appeared to be a low profile individual. The Board also observed that the general situation in Somalia, including in Mogadishu, could not independently justify residence under section 7. 7.6 On the other hand, the Committee also observes that the Refugee Appeals Board found as fact the following accounts given by the author as his grounds for asylum: (a) that he had left Somalia with his family in 1992 at the age of five owing to the civil war in that country; (b) that he belongs to the Bagadi clan; and (c) that he had lived in Yemen with his family until 2011 and had no family network in Mogadishu or elsewhere in Somalia. Although the State party’s immigration authorities concluded that the author’s individual circumstances were not of such nature as to justify asylum under article 7 of the Aliens Act and that the situation in Somalia was not of such nature that everybody returning to the area in and around Mogadishu may be deemed to be at a real risk of abuse amounting to torture and to inhuman or degrading treatment solely as a result of his or her presence in the area, the Committee observes that current reports in the public domain concerning the human rights situation in Somalia,28 and those to which the parties refer, indicate that abuse of and discrimination against minority clans are widespread, clan militias and al-Shabaab continue to commit grave abuses throughout the country, persons returning to Somalia from abroad are extremely vulnerable unless they have strong clan and family connections, and Somalis returning from western countries tend to be regarded as foreigners, having western viewpoints, intentions and motives. 7.7 In the light of the information provided by the author, the information presently available to the Committee and the record of human rights violations in Somalia, the Committee considers that the State party’s immigration authorities have not given sufficient weight to the cumulative effect of the author’s individual circumstances, which make him particularly vulnerable, in assessing the risk of him being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, in case of his forcible return to Somalia. In the Committee’s view, the author’s situation is distinguishable from that of other Somali nationals who sought asylum abroad on the ground of the general situation in Somalia, since he left the country of origin at the age of five and does not have any remaining family or social network in Somalia, has limited literacy skills in the Somali language, belongs to a minority clan and suffered from tuberculosis in the recent past. In these circumstances, the Committee is of the view that the author’s removal to Somalia, in the absence of further consideration of his case in the light of the cumulative effect of the aforementioned individual circumstances, would put him at a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated in article 7 of the Covenant,29 especially given the fact that his brother has already been granted protection status by the State party’s immigration authorities. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s deportation to Somalia would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant by the State party. 28 29 See, for example, United States of America Department of State, country reports on human rights practices for Somalia (Washington, D.C., 25 June 2015); and UNHCR, Position on Southern and Central Somalia (Update 1) (May 2016), paras. 6 and 20. See, for example, communication No. 2258/2013, Rasappu v. Denmark, Views adopted on 4 November 2015, para. 7.7. 11