CCPR/C/106/D/1912/2009 Appendix Individual (dissenting) opinion of Mr. Krister Thelin The majority has admitted the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant, considered it on the merits and found a violation. I disagree. The Committee is in essence asked, and the majority has agreed thereto, to act as a fourth instance, even though it is clear from the Committee’s jurisprudence that, as a general rule, it is for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether the alleged risk exists. The exception to this general rule is where the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. That is not the case in the communication before us, and, therefore, the claim should not have been admitted. (See my dissenting opinion in communication No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada with references) [Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 16