CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes that the author appealed against the negative decision of the Danish Immigration Service in his asylum application to the Refugee Appeals Board, which dismissed the appeal on 11 February 2014, and that the Board also rejected the author’s request for his asylum case to be reopened, on 17 December 2015. Since the decisions of the Board cannot be appealed, no further remedies are available to the author. The Committee observes that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims that by removing him to Afghanistan, he would be exposed to persecution, torture and the risk of death, in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, due to his ethnicity, young age, land dispute with a neighbour and interest in Christianity, and that he would be deprived of the right to exercise his religion in public, in violation of article 18 of the Covenant. The Committee notes, however, the State party’s argument that the author’s claims with respect to articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible because he has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication. 8.5 With regard to the author’s claim under article 18, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s conversion to Christianity has not been genuine, and that this part of his claim is inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae, as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, because article 18 does not have extraterritorial application and the State party therefore cannot be held responsible for violations of article 18 expected to be committed by another State party outside the territory and jurisdiction of Denmark. The Committee recalls that article 2 of the Covenant entails an obligation for States parties not to deport a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, in the country to which removal is to be effected.19 The Committee notes in this regard that the author has not provided further information to substantiate his claim that by removing him to Afghanistan, the State party has violated his rights under article 18, amounting to irreparable harm such as that contemplated in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 20 The Committee therefore considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim for the purposes of admissibility, and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 While noting the State party’s arguments that the author’s claim under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant should be held inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation, the Committee considers that the author has adequately explained numerous risk factors, including his ethnicity, his age and a conflict with a powerful neighbour, for which he fears that his forcible removal to Afghanistan would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with the relevant provisions of the Covenant. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that this part of the communication, raising issues under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, has been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee considers that the inadmissibility argument adduced by the State party is intimately linked to the merits and should thus be considered at that stage. 19 20 See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See, for example, Ch.H.O. v. Canada (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012), para. 9.5. 11