CCPR/C/126/D/2603/2015 facts, together with the available country information, 16 are sufficient to establish that he risks persecution upon his return and thus the assessment of the domestic courts amounts to a denial of justice. From the State party 7.2 On 3 October 2017, the State party added that the Refugee Appeals Board was familiar with the documents invoked by the author and they had formed part of the general background information on Afghanistan. The documents invoked by the author did not constitute additional information that would require reassessment of the case. Therefore, the State party maintains its position that the communication should be declared inadmissible, or that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that it would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant to return the author to Afghanistan. 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 article 97 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 on 1 December 2015 the Refugee Appeals Board decided to reopen the author’s case, however on 18 April 2016 the same Board upheld the decision to reject the author’s request for asylum. 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 Finally, the Committee notes the State party’s challenge to admissibility on the grounds that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has adequately explained the reasons why he fears that his forcible return to Afghanistan would result in a risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 7, and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would risk being subjected to ill-treatment by the Taliban on the one hand for having worked for five years as a soldier for the Afghan and United States forces and on the other hand for his presumed affiliation with the Taliban by the Afghan authorities. He claims that prior to his departure he received two threatening letters from the Taliban because of his work, and after having received the first letter his car was shot at in an attempt to kill him. He claims that he was abducted by the Taliban and was detained for four months during which he was 16 8 In addition to the reports cited in his previous submissions, the author also relies on the following reports: “Afghanistan: Taliban’s intelligence and the intimidation campaign” by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, dated 23 August 2017, available at www.landinfo.no/asset/3590/1/3590_1.pdf; “Afghanistan: Taliban’s organization and structure” by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, dated 23 August 2017, available at www.landinfo.no/asset/3589/1/3589_1.pdf; and “Rättsligt ställningstagande angående säkerhetsläget i Afghanistan”, Migrationsverket, dated 29 August 2017, available at www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/1408296/1226_1505138361_170829550.pdf.