CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 3.5 The author also complains about the violation of his rights under article 19 of the Covenant, on the grounds that his work as interpreter, which is a manifestation of his freedom of speech, is seen by the Taliban as treason. As a result of his deportation to Afghanistan, he would be deprived of that right. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 24 April 2015, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party considers that the author has failed to substantiate the risk of irreparable harm as a consequence of his forced return to Afghanistan and for the same reasons considers the communication inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded owing to a lack of substantiation. 4.2 The State party explains that its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in paragraph 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, under which a residence permit will be issued to an alien upon application if the alien is at risk of the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the event of return to his or her country of origin. According to its practice, the refugee appeals board will generally consider the conditions for issuing a residence permit under section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act to be met when there are specific and individual factors substantiating that the asylum seeker would be exposed to a real risk of the death penalty or of being subjected to torture or to inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his or her country of origin. 4.3 With respect to the assessment of evidence, it is incumbent on an asylum seeker to substantiate that the conditions to be granted asylum are met. The assessment of evidence performed by the refugee appeals board is not governed by specific rules of evidence. It is based on an overall assessment of the asylum seeker’s statements and demeanour during the board’s hearing, in combination with other information in the case, including the board’s background material on the applicant’s country of origin. In the adjudication of the case, the board will seek to determine what findings of fact it should make, based on evidence. If the asylum seeker’s statements appear coherent and consistent, the board will normally accept them as facts. In cases where the asylum seeker’s statements throughout the proceedings are characterized by inconsistencies, changing statements, expansions or omissions, the board will seek to clarify the reasons. However, inconsistent statements by the asylum seeker about crucial parts of his or her grounds for seeking asylum may weaken his or her credibility. If in doubt about the applicant’s credibility, the board will always assess to what extent the principle of the benefit of the doubt should be applied. 4.4 In the present case, the State party recalls that, on 13 July 2012, the Danish immigration service rejected the author’s asylum application and, on 31 January 2013, the refugee appeals board upheld that decision. On 13 May 2013, the author’s counsel requested the reopening of the asylum proceedings. That request was denied on 25 February 2014, on the grounds that the author had been recorded as having failed to appear in the asylum centre. 4.5 On 13 October 2014, the Danish National Police informed the refugee appeals board that the author had been detained, and the board agreed to reconsider the reopening of the asylum proceedings on the basis of the author’s previous request. On 2 March 2015, the board refused to reopen the asylum procedure. The board found no basis for reopening the case, nor any basis for extending the time limit for the author’s departure. 4.6 The State party recalls that, as his asylum grounds, the author had referred to his fear of being killed by a local colonel affiliated with the Taliban in case of his return to Afghanistan because he had withheld information from him. In connection with his employment with the private company Mission Essential Personnel, the applicant had 4