CCPR/C/117/D/2745/2016
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
4.1
Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must,
in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether it is admissible under
the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
4.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement. It also notes that the authors claim that domestic
remedies have been exhausted and considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the
Optional Protocol have been met.
4.3
The Committee notes the authors’ claim that their deportation to the Islamic
Republic of Iran would breach their rights under articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. In
particular, the authors claim that they risk being subjected to torture and ill-treatment upon
return.
4.4
The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of 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.
The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 1 and that there is a high
threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm
exists.2 In making this assessment, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered,
including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.3 The
Committee further recalls its jurisprudence indicating that considerable weight should be
given to the assessment conducted by the State party, 4 and that it is generally for organs of
States parties to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a
risk exists unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a
manifest error or denial of justice.5
4.5
In the light of the above and taking into account the information provided by the
authors, the Committee observes that the authors have not convincingly identified any
irregularity in the decision-making process in the framework of their asylum proceedings in
the State party or sufficiently substantiated why the decisions of the State party’s authorities
were clearly arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. In this
connection, the Committee notes that the material before it does not permit it to conclude
that the examination by the State party’s asylum authorities of the authors’ claim
1
2
3
4
5
See, for example, communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014,
para. 9.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007,
T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland,
decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on
28 July 1997, para. 6.6.
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.
Ibid.
See, for example, communications No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March
2013, para. 9.3; and No. 2344/2014, E.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 2 November 2015,
para. 8.4.
See, for example, communication No. 2344/2014, E.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, Views adopted on
2 November 2015, para. 8.4.
3