CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012 number of visits, the time when the militants took their identity documents, and the time when the militants informed Mr. X about their terrorist plans, and about the authorities’ actions in continuation thereof, including the question whether there were house searches during the following week. 4.4 Regarding the authors’ statement that they fear contacting the authorities in the Russian Federation as they will be returned to the town of Karachayevsk in KarachayCherkessia, Mr. X’s town of origin, if they identify themselves to the Russian authorities and that the police and the Federal Security Service of Karachayevsk have been infiltrated by the militants, the State party considers that the authors cannot be considered to have had any conflicts with the authorities in the Russian Federation or any other outstanding issue with the Russian authorities. According to his own statements, Mr. X has acted in the interests of the Government of the Russian Federation, having done his compulsory military service with the Russian Navy and having warned the Russian authorities of a potential imminent terrorist act. 4.5 As to the authors’ fear that the militants have infiltrated the police and the Federal Security Service, the State party observes that in 2002 the Russian Federation adopted the Law on Countering Extremist Activity, which criminalizes a wide array of activities, including “incitement to social, racial, national or religious discord”. The Government further observes that Wahhabism is prohibited by law in several regions in the Russian Federation and that 19 Muslim groups were designated terrorist organizations in 2011. 4.6 For the purpose of the authors’ asylum proceedings, the Refugee Appeals Board has obtained the asylum documents of Mr. X’s mother and two younger brothers, and subsequently found that the asylum cases of his family members were not directly linked to the motive for asylum relied on by the authors, not least because the mother and brothers left in 2001, which was six years before the authors’ departure in 2007. Additionally, the Refugee Appeals Board has obtained the asylum documents of Mr. X’s brother, S.X., and his spouse from France and pointed out a contradiction between the statements of the author and his brother regarding the same events. For instance, S.X. had stated before the French authorities that the first author had fled from their home in 1999 after he had been contacted by a former classmate and had been told to make himself ready on the next day, which the first author had taken as a threat. The State party pointed out that the first author did not mention the former classmate in his asylum application, and that he had stated instead that in 1999 he had fled his home together with his brother S.X. The Refugee Appeals Board found that the asylum case of S.X. was of no direct significance to the authors’ case in terms of time or content, observing that S. X.’s case was linked to his own acts and critical attitude to the militants. Finally, the State party mentions that Mr. X’s brother U.X., who has a residence permit for Sweden, has not been granted asylum in Sweden, but that on 10 June 2003 he had been granted time-limited residence for the period 10 June 2003 to 10 June 2008 based on his ties with a person resident in Sweden. The residence permit was subsequently made permanent. 4.7 Regarding the author’s claims under articles 14 and 26 of the Covenant, the State party submits that asylum proceedings do not constitute civil rights and obligations and therefore fall outside the scope of article 14 and that the authors have failed to establish that they have been deprived of their right to access the courts. In that respect, the Government points to the fact that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board is a quasi-judicial body which qualifies as a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Refugee Appeals Board’s decisions were further based on a procedure during which the authors had the opportunity to present their views, both in writing and orally, to the Board with the assistance of legal counsel. The Board conducted comprehensive and thorough examinations of the evidence in the case. The authors have thus been granted access to a hearing as described in article 14. Moreover, it has been established by the Supreme Court 7