CCPR/C/126/D/2603/2015 the author had been employed as a senior medic with the National Directorate of Security, the majority of the members of the Refugee Appeals Board observed that while the author had been able to provide details on and document his work for the National Directorate of Security extensively, his statement about his detention by the Taliban lacked any details despite the fact that the detention had lasted for about four months. 4 Therefore, the Refugee Appeals Board could not consider much of the author’s account of events credible, because his statements about his conflict with the Taliban and the way they had allegedly tried to identify him was vague and unlikely on several points. 2.5 Since final decisions by the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be appealed to the Danish courts, the author submits that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. The present communication has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 2.6 On 26 October 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board decided to reopen the case for consideration, at an oral hearing by a new panel. On 18 April 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board, by a unanimous decision, refused the author’s asylum request again. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon his return to Afghanistan as a result of his work for the Afghan intelligence service and United States forces for five years. 3.2 The author also fears the Afghan authorities because he was wrongfully suspected of supporting the Taliban. He submits that this accusation is extremely difficult to exonerate, since there have been several examples of soldiers changing sides, and the author strongly believes the approach of the National Directorate of Security would be to err on the side of caution rather than to risk a Taliban infiltrator. The author submits background information on threats to persons working with foreign soldiers or the Afghan National Security Forces, as well as individuals suspected of supporting “anti-government elements”.5 3.3 As regards the assessment of his claims in domestic proceedings, he submits that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 9 March 2015 was reached by a majority instead of being a unanimous decision. Although it was accepted by the Board that he had worked for the National Directorate of Security and United States forces for five years, the Board found that his statement on his detention by the Taliban weakened his overall credibility, including his statement about the threatening letters and the shooting incident. In that connection, the Board observed that it seemed peculiar that the author, who had brought extensive documentation on his employment and affiliation with the National Directorate of Security, had not been able to present the threatening letters. Based on an overall assessment, the majority of the members of the Board concluded that the author had failed to render it probable that he had been identified by the Taliban or that he had had a specific conflict with the Taliban. The author submits in this respect that he gave a detailed and adequate account of his detention and that he also answered questions about his detention to the best of his ability. The author also submits that he was able to provide well-documented evidence of his five years of work for the National Directorate of Security because such evidence was available, in contrast to the lack of documentation in connection with his 4 5 The author had given inconsistent statements about his detention, as to whether three or four passengers from the taxi had been taken to the mountains by the Taliban and whether he had been tied with a rope or a chain. The Board also found to be unlikely the author’s statement that the Taliban had detained him for four months without making any attempts to verify his statement regarding his alleged identity but that instead it had allegedly tried to identify him by sending in a person from the authorities or a previously arrested Taliban member. The Board emphasized that this was even more peculiar in light of the fact that the applicant had not participated in interrogations and that he had been masked in connection with the arrests. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan, 6 August 2013 (HCR/EG/AFG/13/01). See also European Asylum Support Office, Afghanistan: Insurgent Strategies – Intimidation and Targeted Violence against Afghans, December 2012. 3