CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014 author’s own statements, the neighbour did not demand the author’s family’s land until mid-2011, four years after the father’s death in 2007, and that the land dispute took place three years before the Board’s decision. The Board has also, for example, noted that the author does not belong to a minority ethnic group in the area of his residence (see para. 4.9 above), and that the author stated that he had never experienced any problems with the Afghan authorities. The Committee further notes that the Board considered all the author’s statements in regard to his Christian activities and persuasion, made during the Board hearing and in the written material, including those made by his counsel; nonetheless, the Board could not consider the author’s Christian persuasion as genuine, since the author established contact with a pastor in Denmark only two weeks before the Board’s hearing, and he was baptized on 23 February 2014, 12 days after the Board’s final decision. 9.6 The Committee also notes that the Refugee Appeals Board observed, in its decision of 17 December 2015, that it received no information on the applicant’s religious persuasion or activities, either from the counsel or from the author, during the period from 3 April 2014 until receipt of the request for reopening of the author’s asylum case on 3 August 2015, when the author had already been removed from Denmark. Since the author is no longer in Denmark, his asylum case was considered as closed by the State party’s asylum authorities. The Committee notes that the Board also observed a lack of explanation as to why the new information could not have been forwarded before the author’s forcible removal on 2 August 2015, as well as inconsistencies in that information. 9.7 The Committee further notes the author’s submission that his claims and the risk factors pertaining to him were not properly assessed by the State party’s authorities, and that the Refugee Appeals Board’s decisions were manifestly erroneous as such decisions cannot be appealed to a court, emphasizing that the Board’s proceedings lack attributes of a judicial process and that the interpreters used are not properly qualified. In this connection, the Committee notes the State party’s claim that the author has not explained why the decisions of the Board in his case would be contrary to the due process standards, nor has he provided substantial grounds to support his claim that his removal to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that certain kinds of abuse by private individuals may be of such scope and intensity as to amount to persecution if the authorities are not able or willing to offer protection.26 However, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the author’s claims mainly reflect his disagreement with the factual conclusions drawn by the State party, including the alleged risk of being harmed by his former neighbour due to a land dispute, or being persecuted, tortured or executed by the Afghan authorities on account of his religious beliefs, and do not demonstrate that these conclusions are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable or that the asylum proceedings in question amounted to a denial of justice.27 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that, by removing the author to Afghanistan, the State party did not violate its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 26 27 Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013), para. 7.5. See, for example, P.T. v. Denmark, para. 7.4; and M.P. et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/121/D/2643/ 2015), para. 8.7. 13