CCPR/C/123/D/2328/2014 9.2 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. 21 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 22 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. 23 9.3 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of State parties 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 clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.24 9.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he would be at risk of being killed, kidnapped or raped by the Taliban, because he belongs to the Hazara minority, which is under attack by the Taliban, who are mainly ethnic Pashtuns. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that his father and elder brother were kidnapped by the Taliban in 2009 due to the inability of the author’s father to pay the requested amount of money before the deadline given to him by the Taliban. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that, due to his real or perceived individual characteristics, he fits the profiles of asylum seekers from Afghanistan who may be in need of international protection, according to the Eligibility Guidelines (see, paras. 3.2–3.3 above). 9.5 In this connection, the Committee notes the State party’s argument, as established by the Board in its decision of 23 January 2012, that the author’s statement on his grounds for asylum had been fabricated for the occasion (see para. 4.6 above) and he had elaborated on his initial statement during the asylum proceedings (see para. 4.7 above). The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the Board’s decision was based on a specific and individual assessment of the author’s asylum grounds combined with its background knowledge on the general situation in Afghanistan and the specific details of the case. The Committee takes note that the State party’s authorities, having examined the evidence provided by the author in his asylum application, including interviews and oral hearings, found that the author had not shown that there were substantial grounds for believing that his life would be in danger or that he would be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Afghanistan. 9.6 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s contention that the author’s claim that he is at risk of being forcibly recruited by the Taliban is not consistent with the background material available, according to which many volunteers join the Taliban, hence there is no need for them to forcibly recruit young people, especially ethnic Hazaras, considering that these two groups do not trust each other. The Committee further notes the State party’s statement that, according to the available background information, there is a large minority of ethnic Hazaras in the Wardak Province and that they are not at risk of being subjected to abuse falling within article 7 of the Covenant solely due to their ethnic affiliations. Therefore, the fact that the author is an ethnic Hazara from the Wardak Province cannot in itself justify his entitlement to international protection. In addition, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that there was no specific basis for assuming that the fact that the author, like many other Afghan nationals, has stayed for a period of time in the West would result in him attracting particular attention upon return to Afghanistan. 21 22 23 24 See the Committee’s general comment No. 31, para. 12. See, for example, Y v. Canada (CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013), para. 7.2; and P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.2. See, for example, Y v. Canada, para. 7.2; X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. See, for example, P.T. v. Denmark, para. 7.3; B.L. v. Australia (CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011), para. 7.3; and Z v. Australia (CCPR/C/111/D/2049/2011), para 9.3. 9