CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 his hearing, the author had stated that the events had taken place in June 2011. Later, when the board obtained information indicating that he had resigned from his position in May, he explained that he had mentioned June and July instead of May and June as a result of pressure felt during the interview with the immigration services and because he was not familiar with the Gregorian calendar.d 6. Following an overall assessment, the refugee appeals board held that the author’s account was not credible. It based its assessment inter alia on inconsistent statements on the period of the author’s employment as interpreter and inconsistencies in the reported dates on which the events giving rise to the alleged risk had taken place, and concluded that he had failed to substantiate a real risk of irreparable harm. 7. Against this background, I am not able to agree with the majority’s criticism that the State party failed to evaluate the individual circumstances of the author’s case. On the contrary, the State party examined the evidence submitted by the author, analysed the alleged threats received by the author in Afghanistan and explained why it found them to be inconsistent and implausible. The inconsistently reported dates had related to the events that allegedly gave rise to the author’s claimed risk and thus cannot be described as peripheral to his claim. 8. I also disagree with the criticism voiced by the majority of the Committee regarding the investigation of the murder, namely, the failure to investigate the veracity and validity of the evidence.e The author concedes that it is not possible to establish and fully document the circumstance of the killingf and maintains that at least it could not be excluded that the murder had been an act of retaliation against the author. This vague submission, however, is insufficient for the purpose of adducing evidence capable of proving substantial grounds for a real riskg and thus does not demand further investigative measures by the State party. 9. Denmark therefore cannot be reproached either for a failure to examine relevant evidence or for inadequate consideration of information provided by the author. Nevertheless, the majority of the Committee holds that insufficient weight was given to the author’ allegations, and that the State party has not adequately addressed the author’s personal circumstances. I fail to see which other individual circumstances the majority of the Committee may envisage that the refugee appeals board has failed to analyse and therefore respectfully dissent from the Committee’s Views. d e f g 18 See footnote 5 and para. 5.10. Para. 9.10. See para. 5.2. See para. 3 of this opinion.