CCPR/C/122/D/2642/2015 international obligations regarding asylum applications. The State party also describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board.11 Admissibility 4.2 The State party argues that the author’s claim under article 1 of the Covenant is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. It submits that the right of all peoples to self-determination and the right to freely determine their political status, pursue their economic, social and cultural development and dispose of their natural wealth and resources is a collective right. In this connection, it refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which an individual cannot claim to be the victim of a violation of the right to self-determination enshrined in article 1 of the Covenant, as that article deals with rights conferred to peoples.12 4.3 Regarding the author’s claim under article 9 of the Covenant, the State party states that it is not aware of any case in which the Committee has applied article 9 extraterritorially. It refers to a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, in which the Court decided to apply extraterritorially article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is similar to article 9 of the Covenant. In that decision the Court stated that: A Contracting State would be in violation of Article 5 if it removed an applicant to a State where he or she was at real risk of a flagrant breach of that Article. However, as with Article 6, a high threshold must apply. A flagrant breach of Article 5 would occur only if, for example, the receiving State arbitrarily detained an applicant for many years without any intention of bringing him or her to trial. A flagrant breach of Article 5 might also occur if an applicant would be at risk of being imprisoned for a substantial period in the receiving State, having previously been convicted after a flagrantly unfair trial.13 4.4 The State party further considers that the author has failed to demonstrate that a flagrant violation of article 9 of the Covenant would occur if he were to be deported to Bangladesh. It therefore considers that this claim is manifestly unfounded and should be held inadmissible under rule 96 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Merits 4.5 The State party indicates that it does not consider it relevant to comment any further on the author’s claims regarding article 1 of the Covenant. 4.6 Regarding the claims under article 9, the State party submits that the author has not sufficiently established that his return to Bangladesh would constitute a violation of this provision. The State party also notes that the author has not provided any new information in addition to the information made available to the domestic authorities during the asylum proceedings. 4.7 The State party further reiterates that the author lacked credibility during the asylum proceedings. It also states that the Refugee Appeals Board evaluates an asylum seeker’s credibility on the basis of an overall assessment, and that if his or her statements appear coherent and consistent, they are normally considered as facts. However, when an asylum seeker’s statements are characterized by inconsistencies, as in the author’s case, the Board attempts to clarify the reasons for such inconsistencies. The State party further recalls that on 7 January 2014, the Board found that the author had not been able to substantiate his grounds for asylum, as in relation to several points he gave evasive answers. He also gave inconsistent statements in relation to the course of events prior to his departure, including the time of his membership of the Jamaat-e-Islami, his activities for the party, the dates of his attendance at the Qur’an school, the periods when he had had jobs, the dates of and 11 12 13 6 See Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. See Kitok v. Sweden (CCPR/C/33/D/197/1985), para. 6.3. The State party also refers to Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, communication No. 167/1984 and H.E.A.K v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2343/2014). See European Court of Human Rights, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, application No. 8139/09, ruling of 17 January 2012, para. 233.