CCPR/C/127/D/2654/2015 4.2 The State party describes the proceedings before the Refugee Appeals Board.10 4.3 As concerns the alleged violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board accepted as fact the author’s statements that he was forced to help soldiers move to a camp in 2006 and, in that connection, that he was involved in an accident as a consequence of which he was hospitalized. However, the Board could not accept as fact that the author subsequently found himself “in an adversarial position” with the local authorities. In its assessment, the Board held as important that the author’s statements about the course of events after his discharge from hospital seemed incoherent and inconsistent. In particular, he made inconsistent statements regarding the length of his stay at home before hiding in a hut in a field.11 He made incoherent statements as to how much time could have passed from his discharge until the soldiers came to his home inquiring about his whereabouts. He made inconsistent statements as to whether he was still at home when the soldiers were looking for him or whether he was then staying in a hut. The State party acknowledges that the alleged incidents happened nine years prior to the author’s hearing before the Board and that he was also hospitalized at the time, but submits that those circumstances cannot explain the considerable inconsistencies in his accounts of the alleged facts. Furthermore, the Board considers that the author merely assumed that the soldiers were looking for him at his home as a result of the road accident. The State party notes that recognition of the author as a refugee by UNHCR in Malaysia cannot lead to a different assessment of the case. Lastly, the Board finds that the general human rights condition in Myanmar for persons of Kachin ethnicity cannot, in and of themselves, justify the granting of asylum. 4.4 The State party notes that the author has not produced any new information in his complaint to the Committee and that all relevant background information was made available to and considered by the Refugee Appeals Board in its decision of 29 May 2015. After a thorough assessment of the relevant background information 12 and the author’s individual circumstances, the Board concluded that the author was not at risk of illtreatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 4.5 As concerns the alleged violation of article 13 of the Covenant, the State party submits that that article partly guarantees the same procedural rights afforded by article 14 (1) of the Covenant but that it does not, however, encompass the right to appeal or the right to a court hearing.13 Considering that the author did not elaborate any further on his claim under article 13, the State party is of the position that this claim is not sufficiently substantiated. 4.6 As concerns the alleged violation of articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author’s claims are unsubstantiated. In addition, the State party notes 10 11 12 13 4 See, for example, Ahmed v. Demark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. The State party submits that the author stated in his asylum application form completed on 19 September 2011 that he returned home to recover after he had been discharged from hospital. During his interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 12 September 2014, he stated that he went home after his discharge from hospital and stayed there for about half an hour to pack his belongings. During his second interview, on 10 February 2015, the author confirmed that information. However, on 29 May 2015, the author stated at his hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board that he stayed home for a couple of days after having been discharged from the hospital. Later on, during the same interview, he asserted that he stayed home for about a month and that he decided to leave only after the soldiers had visited his house. The State party refers to the following: Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2014 (Washington, D.C., 2015), p. 4; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2015 (2015), p. 126; Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State of the World’s Human Rights (London, 2015), pp. 262 and 264; Minority Rights Group International, State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2015 (London, 2015), p. 149. The State party also refers to the oral update on the human rights violations and abuses against Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar given by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Council at its thirtieth session and the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (A/70/412, para. 47). The State party refers to Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012) and Human Rights Committee, Maroufidou v. Sweden, communication No. 58/1979.