CCPR/C/126/D/2603/2015 forces, but that it should instead examine the individual circumstances of his case, the nature of his connections and his profile. The Court concluded that the author had failed to demonstrate that his return to Afghanistan would violate article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights).10 4.5 In the present case, the State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board decided to reopen the author’s asylum case at an oral hearing to be reconsidered by a new panel. In its new, unanimous decision of 18 April 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board made a thorough assessment of the author’s specific circumstances, including his credibility, and the background information available in respect of Afghanistan. While the Board accepted substantial elements of the author’s statement as facts as compared to in the Board’s judgment of 9 March 2015, it found that the author had failed to render it probable that he would be in danger of being killed or being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he were returned to Afghanistan. In particular, the Board considered it a fact that the author had worked as a soldier and performed first aid at a United States base in Kunar Province and that the Taliban had made written threats against him twice in that connection. However, the Board found that the threats, which were delivered to his family’s home in late 2011 and early 2012, had not been of such a nature and intensity as to render it probable that the Taliban would continue to contact him. 11 The Board also considered it a fact that the author had been kidnapped by the Taliban in 2013, but considered that the kidnapping had not been connected to the author’s work for United States forces. The Board also considered it a fact that he had not been identified during his capture. The Board found that the applicant had failed to render it probable that the shooting incident to which he was subjected in 2011 was connected to his work for United States forces, as the existence of such a connection was based solely on his own assumption. The Board therefore found that the author had not become a high-profile individual as a result of that kidnapping and that the applicant did not risk continued persecution due to the kidnapping or due to his former work at the United States base. 12 Finally, the Board found that the applicant’s statement that he feared the Afghan authorities because they suspected him of having joined the Taliban was based solely on the author’s own assumption. In that respect, the Board noted that the author had told the United States forces about the two threatening letters from the Taliban and about his fear of the Taliban. 4.6 The State party recalls that it is generally for the authorities of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether there is a risk of irreparable harm, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In the present case, however, the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author would not be at a specific and individual risk of persecution in case of his return to Afghanistan. The State party adds that no new information has been brought to the Committee over and above that already assessed by the Board. Thus, in the State party’s opinion, there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by the Board, according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be at risk of being killed or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he were returned to Afghanistan. 4.7 The State party submits that the reports relied upon by the author form part of the Refugee Appeals Board’s background material on Afghanistan, which were taken into account in the Board’s assessment of his case. Nevertheless, the State party submits that the 10 11 12 Judgment of 9 April 2013 (applications Nos. 70073/10 and 44539/11). It has been emphasized that at the Board hearing, the applicant stated that it had been part of his job to receive similar letters and that this was a risk that he had accepted. This statement is supported by the circumstance that the applicant’s family has not been contacted or threatened by the Taliban at any time and that, when kidnapped, the applicant appeared to be a low-profile individual in the eyes of the Taliban, who did not find out about his real identity despite his work at the United States base. The Refugee Appeals Board could not consider it as a fact that the author’s father, after the author’s entry into Denmark in 2014, had received yet another threatening letter telling the applicant to cease working for the United States forces. The Board emphasized in that respect that it seemed unlikely that the Taliban would not know that the applicant had ceased working for the United States forces two years earlier. 5