CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 had started at the end of 2009, about one year after his return from Pakistan. On the same occasion, he had declared that he had worked as an interpreter for one year and four or five months. As regards the period of his employment, he had reported that he had worked as an interpreter from 2010 to 5 May 2011. 4.12 During his asylum interview conducted by the Danish immigration service on 13 January 2012, the author had stated that he had applied for a job with Mission Essential Personnel around the beginning of January 2010 and that he had worked there until his departure at the beginning of July 2011, without resigning from his position at any time. 4.13 During his hearing before the refugee appeals board on 23 January 2013, the author stated that his employment with Mission Essential Personnel had started in 2010, that he had acted as an interpreter at a meeting between M.W. and A.M.W. in June 2011, and that he had gone on vacation to Kandahar in June 2011 after receiving a threat from A.M.W. The vacation had been ordered by Mission Essential Personnel as interpreters were ordered to go on vacation after three months’ employment. However, the letter of recommendation from J.S. indicates that the author had worked as an interpreter for international security forces from 1 May 2010 to 31 May 2011. 4.14 In the author’s request for reopening of proceedings on 23 October 2014, he stated that he had worked for Mission Essential Personnel between 2010 and May 2011. However, the author did not return after his vacation in June 2011. 4.15 During his asylum interview conducted by the Danish immigration service on 13 January 2012, the author made three different statements on the date on which he had become aware of the arrest of A.M.W. Following an overall assessment, the refugee appeals board determined that the author had failed to provide a credible statement on his grounds for asylum and that he had failed to render probable that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would be at a real risk of persecution or abuse falling within section 7 of the Aliens Act. 4.16 The State party observes that the author’s allegations before the Committee are largely identical to those presented in his request for reopening of proceedings submitted to the refugee appeals board on 23 October 2014. 4.17 According to the State party, the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of his communication under article 7 of the Covenant. It has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture or to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Afghanistan. 4.18 With respect to his allegations concerning article 19 of the Covenant, the State party observes that the author is seeking to apply the obligations with regard to that article in an extraterritorial manner, as his claims do not rest on any treatment that he has suffered in Denmark or in an area where Danish authorities are in effective control or owing to the conduct of Danish authorities. Accordingly, the State party submits that the Committee lacks jurisdiction over this alleged violation in respect of Denmark and that this part of the communication is thus inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae, and is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 4.19 Should the Committee find the author’s communication admissible, the Government submits that the author has not sufficiently established that it would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant to return him to Afghanistan, on account of his lack of credibility with respect to several crucial elements of his asylum application. 4.20 The State party further refers to reports included as background information available to the refugee appeals board and forming the basis of its decision, including the UNHCR International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan and the 2012 6