CCPR/C/116/D/2357/2014 The Board did not make its decision concerning counsel’s request for reopening until 17 March 2014 because the Board receives a high number of such requests. It processes them as quickly as possible, endeavouring whenever possible to render a decision before any involuntary removal. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submission dated 29 October 2014, the author maintains that the State party also violated his rights under article 13 of the Covenant. The asylum determination process in Denmark has inherent flaws that violate the standards set forth under articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant. Negative decisions of the Board may not be appealed to ordinary courts and the Board lacks many of the attributes of real courts. For example, meetings are never open to the public and witnesses are only allowed in a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, one member of the five-member board is appointed by the Ministry of Justice and is usually an employee of that Ministry; this can easily create a conflict of interest. In addition, interpreters who are used by the Danish Immigration Service and the Board are not required to fulfil any specific education requirements in translation or linguistics. 5.2 The Board’s adverse credibility determination was erroneous in several regards. Although the Board considered it implausible that Q’s brothers were not involved in the property deal at the time of the agreement, the author could not know the reason for this lack of involvement and it is plausible that the brothers let Q enter into the sale without written consent. The Board found that it was unlikely that the author attacked one of Q’s brothers, since the brothers were armed and were known to have links with organized crime. However, the author simply “got carried away” out of anger when faced with the brothers’ unjust behaviour and foul language. Q’s brothers were trespassing on his family’s property and making unfair demands. Moreover, although the Board found it implausible that Q’s brothers did not try to visit the author’s family home until the day they killed the author’s father and brother, the author cannot explain the behaviour of Q’s brothers in that regard. Q’s brothers probably realized that the author had fled from the scene of the attack and left the family home. Although the Board found that the author had made several inconsistent statements concerning the number of rifles used in the conflict, only one weapon was used. At one point, the author thought that he had seen his brother with a weapon; later, however, he realized that his brother had simply taken hold of S’s weapon. Although the Board found that the author made inconsistent statements as to the length of time that passed from the property deal until the incident leading to S’s death, the author explained during his first interview that Q’s brothers would not have claimed the land during Q’s lifetime, since Q would then have been to blame. A month elapsed between Q’s and S’s death. Although the Board found that the author had made material additions to his narrative during the oral hearing, he had not been asked detailed questions prior to the hearing. Such detailed questions logically elicited more detailed responses from him during the hearing. Finally, the Board’s determination that the author’s testimony was not “selfexperienced” is not the result of a thorough assessment, since his testimony lasted only one and a half hours. In guidelines on assessing the credibility of asylum claims, UNHCR identifies geographical and cultural distance as challenges. 4 The State party should investigate the accuracy of the author’s statements regarding the land dispute. The author maintains that the State party could perform such an investigation because he “does not fear [the] authorities in Afghanistan”. 4 The author cites UNHCR, Beyond Proof: Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems (May 2013), p. 30. 5