CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 submitted to the refugee appeals board, should not have led a reasonable decision-maker to regard his statement as lacking in credibility. We are equally unpersuaded by the explanations for the inconsistencies provided by the author (and uncritically adopted by the majority), that he was not familiar with the Gregorian calendar despite having worked for more than two years with international forces in Afghanistan as a bodyguard and an interpreter. We are therefore of the view that the Committee should not have secondguessed the findings of the board that his statements lacked in credibility. 5. While the majority on the Committee is correct in observing that findings on credibility do not fully absolve the State party from engaging in an assessment of the risk to the author if deported (para. 9.8), we do not find a basis in the case file to hold that the State party failed to evaluate the risk to the author. On the contrary, it relied on a recent European Court of Human Rights judgmente to support the conclusion that the author’s past employment as an interpreter for international forces would not in itself place him under real risk if returned to Kabul. Furthermore, we note that the author himself admitted that he “cannot be sure that the murder of his brother-in-law is related to the conflict with A.M.W.” (para. 3.3) and has not shown that the Afghan authorities would not be able to protect a low-profile person such as him from violence by the Taliban. It thus does not appear to us to be manifestly arbitrary or a denial of justice for the refugee appeals board to find the author not subject to a real risk of irreparable harm if returned to Afghanistan.f 6. Finally, with respect to the position taken by the majority on the Committee, according to which the State party should have engaged in an independent investigation of the events in Afghanistan alleged by the author (para. 9.10), we are of a view that such a duty to investigate can only be triggered by statements that establish a prima facie case for a real risk of irreparable harm. However, owing to his vague allegations about the risk he currently faces in Afghanistan, his lack of certainty about the circumstances leading to his brother-in-law’s death and his lack of credibility, the author failed to meet this standard. 7. We therefore respectfully dissent from the position taken by the majority on the Committee in this case. Needless to say, our dissent cannot be interpreted as an endorsement of the morality of the conduct of officials in countries providing international security force contingents, who have failed to make suitable arrangements for those locally recruited personnel who collaborated with them. e f 16 See H. and B. v. the United Kingdom (applications Nos. 70073/10 and 44539/11), judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 March 2013. See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12.