CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014 7.5 In this connection, the Committee notes the author’s claim that he suffered discrimination as an asylum seeker because the decisions of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board are the only decisions that become final without the possibility of being appealed against in courts, and that the State party has thus violated articles 2, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant. In that regard, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14, but are governed by article 13, of the Covenant.20 Article 13 of the Covenant offers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but does not itself protect the right of appeal to judicial courts. 21 The Committee considers that the author’s claim of discrimination is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 Finally, the Committee notes the State party’s challenge to admissibility on the grounds that the author’s claim under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has adequately explained the reasons why he fears that his forcible return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would result in a risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 and 7 and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that returning him to the Islamic Republic of Iran would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee notes the author’s argument that he would face persecution by the Iranian authorities because he refused to continue to work for the Basij — an Iranian militia — and because he fled the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally. It also notes the information provided by the State party regarding the treatment received, upon their return, by persons who fled the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally. According to country information on illegal exit from the Islamic Republic of Iran published by the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in July 2016, an Iranian person who seeks to return to the Islamic Republic of Iran without a passport will not face any real risk of persecution on account of having left the country illegally and/or being a failed asylum seeker, unless adverse interest has previously been manifested by the Iranian authorities in respect of the person concerned. 22 The State party also indicates that the Islamic Republic of Iran does not criminalize failed asylum seekers as it is not a criminal offence in the Islamic Republic of Iran for any Iranian to ask for asylum in another 20 21 22 See P.K. v. Canada (CCPR/C/89/D/1234/2003), paras. 7.4 and 7.5. See Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013), para. 6.4; and the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62. The State party refers to para. 5.1.2 of the report by the Home Office (United Kingdom) entitled “Country information and guidance: Iran: Illegal exit”, of July 2016, in which a Director General of Consular Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran is quoted as stating that “a person who has left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally and who is not registered on the list of people who cannot leave the Islamic Republic of Iran will not face problems with the authorities upon return, though the person may be fined” and that “a person who has committed a crime and has left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally will only be prosecuted for the crime previously committed and not for leaving the country illegally”. The State party also refers to para. 33 of the decision by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), of the United Kingdom, in S.S.H. and H.R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, which mentions that “an Iranian male in respect of whom no adverse interest has previously been manifested by the Iranian State does not face a real risk of persecution/breach of his article 3 rights on return to the Islamic Republic of Iran on account of having left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally and/or being a failed asylum seeker. No such risk exists at the time of questioning on return to the Islamic Republic of Iran nor after the facts (i.e. of illegal exit and being a failed asylum seeker) have been established. In particular, there is not a real risk of prosecution leading to imprisonment.” 11