CCPR/C/123/D/2328/2014 9.7 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the Board often makes mistakes (see para. 5.3 above) and that it has failed to take into account the position of UNHCR on the protection needs of asylum seekers from Afghanistan in its decision of 23 January 2012. The Committee observes, however, that the author has not identified any irregularities in the decision-making process, or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. It considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, he has not shown that those conclusions were clearly arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or that they amounted to a denial of justice. 9.8 The Committee recalls that the obligation not to remove an individual contrary to a State party’s obligations under the Covenant applies at the time of removal and that, in cases of imminent deportation, the material point in time for assessing this issue must be that of its own consideration of the case. 25 Accordingly, in the context of the communications procedure under the Optional Protocol, in assessing the facts submitted by the parties for consideration, the Committee must also take into account new developments that may have an impact on the risks that an author subject to removal may face. In the present case, the information in the public domain has signalled a significant deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan in recent times. 26 However, on the basis of the information in the case file, the Committee is not in a position to assess the extent to which the current situation in his country of origin may impact the author’s personal risk. In this context, the Committee recalls that it remains the responsibility of the State party to continuously assess the risk that any individual would face in case of return to another country before the State takes any final action regarding his or her deportation or removal. 9.9 Without prejudice to the continuing responsibility of the State party to take into account the present situation of the country to which the author would be deported, and in the light of the available information regarding the author’s personal circumstances, the Committee considers that the information before it does not show that the author would face a personal and real risk of treatment contrary to article 6 or article 7 of the Covenant if he were removed to Afghanistan. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the removal of the author to Afghanistan would not violate his rights under articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. 25 26 10 See, for example, S.Z. v. Denmark, para. 7.9. See, for example, Norwegian Refugee Council, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and Samuel Hall, Escaping War: Where to Next? A Research Study on the Challenges of IDP Protection in Afghanistan (Oslo, 2018). Available at www.nrc.no/globalassets/pdf/reports/escaping-war---whereto-next/nrc_idp_escaping-war_where-to-next.pdf.