CCPR/C/125/D/2439/2014 letters of support cannot lead to a different assessment of the case. There is still no evidence confirming the author’s statement in his communication to the Committee that he began to participate regularly in church services and lessons in Christianity five months after his entry into Denmark or that he participated in four months of Bible classes prior to his baptism. 6.4 The Danish Refugee Appeals Board has granted asylum in many cases in which it accepted that the conversion was genuine and that the person would practice the new faith upon return in the country of origin, being thus at such a risk of persecution that could justify asylum. The Board has also reopened other cases when new information has come to light after the initial Board hearing. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee notes that the author invokes article 6 of the Covenant without advancing any arguments to support this claim. Therefore, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee takes notes of the author’s claims under article 14 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. 34 Article 13 offers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but does not itself protect the right of appeal to judicial courts. 35 The Committee considers that the claim under article 14 is therefore insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.36 7.6 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that the decision by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board not to reopen proceedings violated his rights under articles 7 and 13 of the Covenant because the decision was adopted by the chairperson of the panel that considered the appeal, who is a member of the Secretariat, and without granting the author either a hearing or a right to appeal. However, the Committee considers that the author has failed to justify how this in itself affected his rights under the relevant provisions. Therefore, the Committee considers that this claim is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 Lastly, the Committee notes the State party’s challenge to admissibility on the grounds that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant and on the basis of an 34 35 36 Statements from persons who have met the asylum seeker in a church context are also included in the analysis. See X v. Norway (CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014), para. 7.6. P.K. v. Canada (CCPR/C/89/D/1234/2003), paras. 7.4–7.5. 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. K.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014), para. 7.5. 11