CCPR/C/126/D/2603/2015 four-month-long detention. According to the author, the argument of the Board fails to take into consideration the very nature of a detention and the author’s physical and emotional condition while being detained. With regard to the Board’s remark finding it peculiar that he had been unable to produce the two threatening letters that he had received from the Taliban, he submits that he did not keep the letters because he had decided to consider it part of his job to receive such letters, and therefore ignored them and continued his work. The author further submits that the Refugee Appeals Board generally finds documents from Afghanistan inadmissible and attaches no importance to them, as it appears from a memorandum from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark that it is extremely difficult to verify the authenticity of such documents and that false documents are widely available in Afghanistan. Moreover, the author submits that the Refugee Appeals Board attached considerable importance to small inconsistencies in his statement on his capture and subsequent detention and that the Board’s reasoning was highly speculative and not based on evidence. The author also contends that his statements cannot generally be considered unconvincing and that he should have been given “the benefit of the doubt”. Finally, the author submits that, in its consideration of his appeal, the Refugee Appeals Board did not apply the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines on credibility assessment.6 3.4 Finally, the author refers to the general situation of forced returnees in Afghanistan. 7 3.5 In light of the above, the author claims that his removal to Afghanistan would constitute a violation by Denmark of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its submission of 19 July 2016, the State party challenges the admissibility and the merits of the communication. The State party notes that it is for the author to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility. The State party argues that the author’s claim under article 7 is manifestly ill-founded and should therefore be declared inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation. 4.2 The State party describes relevant domestic law and procedures, including the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board, which it considers to be an independent, quasi-judicial body.8 It also points out to the established procedures for assessing inconsistent statements by the asylum seeker, which may affect the asylum seeker’s credibility. 4.3 The State party notes that, when assessing whether the conditions for granting a residence permit have been met under the Aliens Act, 9 the Refugee Appeals Board takes into account the existence of a well-founded fear of being subjected to specific, individual persecution of a certain severity if returned to the country of origin. In determining whether the fear is well founded, the Board takes into account the information on persecution prior to the asylum seeker’s departure from his or her country of origin and, most importantly, what the asylum seeker’s personal situation will be if returned to his or her country of origin. 4.4 Furthermore, the State party cites the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in H. and B. v. United Kingdom concerning an Afghan national who had been employed as an interpreter for United States forces in Afghanistan, in which the Court rejected the claim that the author would not be safe in Kabul because of his profile and the security situation there. The Court found that it could not consider that the author would be at risk in Kabul solely because of his previous work as an interpreter for United States 6 7 8 9 4 Ibid. The author refers to the notes verbales of the Embassy of Afghanistan in Norway dated 26 February 2015 and 2 March 2015 calling for a halt to all forcible deportations to Afghanistan. See, for example, Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1.–4.3. The State party informs the Committee that, pursuant to section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, a residence permit will be issued to an alien upon application if he or she falls within the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Pursuant to section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, a residence permit will also be issued to an alien if he or she risks being subjected to the death penalty or to torture or ill-treatment.