CCPR/C/126/D/2603/2015 State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 28 July 2017 the State party submitted its additional observations on admissibility and the merits, reiterating that the author’s claims had not been substantiated. 6.2 The State party upholds its observations of July 2016 and furthermore recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessments conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists.15 The State party adds that the author has not explained why the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board would be contrary to this standard. 6.3 Referring to the UNHCR Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, the State party recalls that neither the author’s detention by the Taliban nor the two threatening letters from the Taliban can independently lead to a finding that that the author can be deemed to fall within the scope of section 7 of the Aliens Act. The State party observes that the period of the author’s work for the Afghan security forces and the United States forces ended more than four years ago, and that the author cannot be deemed to be a high-profile individual in the eyes of either the Taliban or the Afghan authorities. 6.4 As regards the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in J.K. and others v. Sweden, cited by the author, the State party submits that it differs considerably from the case at hand, in which the author’s detention was not deemed to be connected to the threats that he had received from the Taliban on account of his collaboration with United States forces. The State party recalls the case at the European Court of Human Rights of H. and B. v. United Kingdom, which, it submits, is more relevant to the case at hand, since, even if certain parts of the application were declared inadmissible, the Court specifically considered the general risk of persons who had previously collaborated with United States forces. 6.5 The State party further notes that although the UNHCR background materials cited by the author indeed refer to persons who have collaborated with international forces as individuals belonging to a potential risk group, this reference cannot independently justify the granting of residence to the author under section 7 of the Aliens Act. The State party continues to argue that the decisive factor is whether, upon an assessment of the information in the case at hand in conjunction with the current background information on Afghanistan, the author would be at a specific and individual risk of persecution if returned to Afghanistan. 6.6 Lastly, as the author failed to render it probable that he would risk specific and individual persecution or abuse in case of his return to Afghanistan, the State party submits that he will not be compelled to find an internal flight alternative, so the author’s arguments in this regard are to be considered irrelevant. 6.7 The State party reiterates that the author’s claims are manifestly ill-founded and hence inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party maintains 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. Additional submissions by the parties From the author 7.1 On 8 September 2017, the author reiterated that it had been established by the State party that he had worked for several years for the Afghan security forces and the United States forces. It had also been established and accepted as fact that the author had received two letters from the Taliban because of his work. Therefore, the author contends that these 15 A.S.M. and R.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014), paras. 8.3 and 8.6. 7