CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 report of the Danish immigration service fact-finding mission to Kabul entitled “Afghanistan – Country of Origin Information for Use in the Asylum Determination Process”.7 On the basis of that documentation, it appears that the decisive factor is whether, following an assessment of the information in the specific case in conjunction with the current background information, it is found that the relevant person would be at a specific and individual risk of persecution in case of his return to Afghanistan. 4.21 The State party also refers to the judgment of 9 March 2013 of the European Court of Human Rights in H. and B. v. the United Kingdom (applications Nos. 70073/10 and 44539/11),8 which concerned, inter alia, an Afghan national who had previously been employed as an interpreter for United States forces in Afghanistan. In that judgment, the Court rejected that the applicant would not be safe in Kabul because of his profile and the security situation there. It not convinced that the second applicant would be at risk in Kabul solely because of his previous work as an interpreter for the United States forces, and stated that it must instead examine the individual circumstances of his case, the nature of his connections and his profile. 4.22 In the present case, the State party reiterates the refugee appeals board’s findings that the author had made inconsistent statements on several crucial elements of his grounds for asylum, and that he was trying to use the Committee as an appellate body and have the Committee reassess the factual circumstances relied upon in support of his claim for asylum. The Government submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of facts made by the board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances in the author’s case. The State party concludes by reiterating that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under articles 7 and 19 of the Covenant, and that it should be rejected as inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the Government further submits 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. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 July 2015, the author submitted his comments to the State party’s observations. He notes that, since he has been in Denmark, he has applied for a United States “special immigrant visa” using the pro bono legal counsel of an American law firm in partnership with the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project, which provides legal representation for Iraqis and Afghans who at risk as a result of their work as interpreters with the United States military. The author annexes a letter dated 23 June 2015 from the law firm, which describes the author’s application process for a special immigrant visa, and notes that his legal counsels in the United States have repeatedly attempted to contact one supervisor, M.W., but have been unsuccessful so far. This may be due to his involvement in intelligence matters, which require personnel to change their contact information frequently. The firm also managed to collect statements from two interpreters who worked at the same base as the author. The author tried several times to contact M.W., without success. He therefore rejects the refugee appeals board’s determination that no explanation has been offered as to why a statement was produced from a commanding officer but not from M.W., to whom the author had referred several times and who was allegedly his main contact person. 5.2 With respect to the State party’s assertion endorsing the refugee appeals board’s conclusion that it seems strange and not very likely that the police would confirm in writing 7 8 Available from www.refworld.org/docid/505af0352.html. Available from www.refworld.org/docid/5165b6764.html. 7