CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 in Zabul. The letter further states that, as a result of his service to the United States army, the author faced a constant threat while in Afghanistan and would be in danger from individuals and groups opposed to the United States presence if returned. 5.9 The also author refers to an e-mail dated 24 June 2015 from S.B., one of the pro bono lawyers providing the author with legal counsel for his special immigrant visa. Having worked for the United States military, S.B. confirms that, there is nothing unusual about such date discrepancies, and that awards and letters of appreciation are not intended to be formal records of employment, and often reflect the dates that particular units were present rather than the precise dates that the interpreter started or ended working. He also states that it is not surprising that the author would continue to work with J.S.’s unit even as he assisted others in the intelligence service. 5.10 The author explains that, by mistake, he mentioned June and July instead of May and June. The only remaining question is whether he ended his work on 1 May, 31 May or another date in May 2011. The author does not remember the exact dates, but states that he went on vacation in Kandahar at the end of May 2011. He then left Kandahar in the middle of June and was on his way back with his sister and her children at the end of June/beginning of July 2011, when he left Afghanistan. 5.11 However, the author submits that the essential matter is not the precise date when he officially terminated his contract as interpreter with the United States forces, but rather the fact that he had acted as such for almost a year and a half, during which time he had a conflict with A.M.W., a powerful colonel and owner of construction companies. 10 5.12 The author adds that all employees with contracts with international forces are at high risk of assault and murder from rebel groups, including the Taliban. Interpreters are at particular risk as they are seen as “the eyes of the Americans”. State party’s further observations 6.1 On 24 February 2016, the State party reiterated its previous submission. It recalled that the refugee appeals board had accepted as a fact that the author had worked as an interpreter for the American forces, including that the author had interpreted conversations with A.M.W. However, the board did not accept the author’s allegation that he had experienced subsequent conflicts with A.M.W. as the board found that the author had made non-credible and inconsistent statements in this respect. The State party adds that the board thoroughly examined each of the author’s claims, and particularly analysed the threats allegedly received by the author in Afghanistan, and had found them to be inconsistent and implausible on several grounds. 6.2 The State party adds that the statements from two interpreters in support of the author cannot be considered to provide first-hand information about the alleged conflict of the author with A.M.W., but merely confirm that a powerful person named A.M.W. operated in the area, which has not been dismissed by the refugee appeals board. 6.3 The State party maintains 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 the communication is therefore manifestly ill-founded and should be considered 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 10 The author annexed the testimony of two of his colleagues/interpreters, who provided information on the author. 9