CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012 representative of the Danish Immigration Service. The Board decision will normally be served on the asylum seeker immediately after the Board hearing, and, at the same time, the chairman of the hearing will briefly explain the reasons for the decision. Decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are based on an individual and specific assessment of the relevant case. The asylum seeker’s statements regarding the motive for seeking asylum are assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, including what is known about conditions in the country of origin (background information). Authors’ comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 2 May 2013, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s submission. The authors assert that, during the interview with the Danish Immigration Service, they had a feeling of being under suspicion for not telling the truth about the case. Regarding the discrepancy of the authors’ statement about the visit by Wahhabi militants in April 2006, the authors explained that Mr. X did present the case in detail but not in strict chronological order and that there were errors in the summary of the interview minutes. The authors submit that there was a problem with the form and quality of the interviews as well as the qualifications of interpreters. The authors question the lack of educational requirement for the interpreters used by the Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board as well as the absence of audio-recording of interviews. Moreover, the authors consider that the information given at the different interviews and hearing supplement each other and do not contradict. The authors dispute the State party’s position that the cases of Mr. X’s mother and brothers, who have been granted asylum in Denmark and France, were of no direct significance to the authors’ case in terms of time and content. 5.2 Regarding the alleged violation of articles 14 and 26 of the Covenant, the authors point out that an appeal to the ordinary courts is excluded by the Aliens Act and that that is the only act in Denmark where decisions by a quasi-judicial board cannot be appealed to an ordinary court. 5.3 The authors emphasize that Mr. X’s mother and two younger brothers have already been granted asylum based on the killings of his father by the militants; that his other brother and sister-in-law have also been granted asylum following the killings of their son by the militants; and that the Danish authorities have already accepted as fact that the militants approached Mr. X in 1999 and 2003, making threats and subjecting him to severe beatings. The authors consider that the rejection of the asylum claim by the Refugee Appeals Board was based upon an irrational and erroneous evaluation of the credibility of statements by the authors, in particular with regard to the last approach by the militants in 2006. The authors reiterate that the police in the Russian Federation would not be able to protect them. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that the decisions of the Refugee Board are the only ones that become final without a possibility of being appealed to courts and that the State party thus violates articles 14 and 26 of the Covenant. In that regard, the 9