CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014 6.7 As stated above, an asylum case is deemed to be closed when the asylum seeker leaves Denmark. If the asylum seeker concerned re-enters Denmark and applies for asylum, the Board will consider the application to be a new application for asylum, provided that the asylum seeker has remained in his country of origin. Since the author is no longer in Denmark, the Board cannot consider the author’s situation after his return on 2 August 2015, as attested in the statements of 12 August 2015 from Reverend Krog of the Pentecostal Church and Red Cross volunteer Jens Kennet, and a statement of 1 October 2015 from Reverend Krog14 appended to the counsel’s additional comments of 2 October 2015. 6.8 In regard to the author’s submission concerning the absence of appeals against the decisions of the Board to the Danish courts, and the fact that the Board is not a court of law, reference is made to part 5 of the State party’s observations of 3 October 2014. As far as the calling of witnesses is concerned, the State party observes that, during the proceedings before the Board, neither the author nor his counsel requested that witnesses be called. Accordingly, the author’s objection does not seem to be relevant. Concerning the educational requirements for the interpreters, the State party observes that the author does not appear to have pointed out any errors or omissions in translations in connection with the proceedings before the Immigration Service and the Board, and neither does he appear to have objected to the interpreters used. Moreover, the author confirmed that he had understood everything said by the relevant interpreter during the interview with the Immigration Service on 1 November 2013, and that he had had the opportunity to make comments on the report and corrections to it. The author only made a comment as to the meaning of the word jirga; otherwise, he accepted the report as read out to him by the interpreter. The State party further observes that the Board’s members are very attentive to the adequacy of the interpreting provided at Board hearings and will suspend the hearing in case of interpreting problems, and that the proceedings will be adjourned if the Board finds it unjustifiable to continue the hearing using the interpreter summoned. The State party adds that the author was represented by counsel at the hearing before the Board and that neither the author nor his assigned counsel made any such objections at its hearing on 11 February 2014. It submits that since the author had access to counsel and participated in the oral hearing with the assistance of an interpreter provided by the Board, he has not demonstrated how these proceedings would have amounted to a denial of justice in his case.15 6.9 The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessments conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists.16 The State party adds that the author has not explained why the decision by the Board would be contrary to this standard, 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.17 6.10 The State party reiterates that the author’s claims are manifestly ill-founded and hence inadmissible, and that the claims under article 18 are inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party maintains that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that it constituted a violation of articles 6, 7 or 18 of the Covenant to return the author to Afghanistan. Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 14 March 2016, the initial counsel submitted additional comments, informing the Committee that Mr. Daniel Nørrung could not obtain power of attorney as a succeeding 14 15 16 17 Both statements are enclosed, as annexes 5 and 6. K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.6. P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.3; and K. v. Denmark, paras. 7.4–7.5. N. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014), para. 6.6. 9