CCPR/C/127/D/2654/2015 that the author is seeking the extraterritorial application of the invoked articles in spite of the fact that the alleged interference did not take place in Denmark or in an area where the Danish authorities have effective control, nor was the ill-treatment inflicted by the Danish authorities. Referring to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, 14 the State party argues that the extraterritorial application of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Covenant should be only exceptional. It is in the well-established case law of the Committee that the removal of persons by States parties to other States may entail a violation of articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. However, according to the State party, the Committee has never considered a complaint on the merits concerning the removal of a person who feared the violation of rights other than those contemplated in articles 6 or 7 in the receiving State. The State party makes reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, pursuant to which States parties are required to respect and ensure the Covenant rights for all persons in their territory and all persons under their control, which entails an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory in cases where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The State party considers, however, that removing a person who fears a violation of his rights under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant entails no risks of irreparable harm such as those contemplated under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, the State party submits that this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible for being incompatible ratione materiae and ratione loci with the Covenant. 4.7 As concerns the alleged violation of article 26 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author’s claims have not been sufficiently substantiated and it refers back to its arguments presented concerning the alleged violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The State party further observes that the author has not been treated differently from any other asylum seeker on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status. Accordingly, the State party concludes that the author’s rights under article 26 of the Covenant have not been violated in the course of the asylum proceedings. 4.8 Lastly, the State party submits that the author disagrees with the assessment of his specific circumstances and the background information considered by the Refugee Appeals Board. However, in his communication to the Committee, the author failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factor that the Board has failed to properly take into account. The State party also submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of fact made by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of a particular case. Hence, in the State party’s view, there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by the Board according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being killed or subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Myanmar. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 13 September 2016, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. The author provides the Committee with his resettlement registration form issued by the UNHCR office in Malaysia dated 9 October 2009. In the form it is stated that the author is to be considered a refugee under the UNHCR mandate and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and is recommended for resettlement on the basis of legal and physical protection needs and no local integration prospects in Malaysia. 5.2 As to the admissibility of the complaint, the author reiterates his previous arguments. Additionally, as concerns the alleged violation of article 13, he contests that the Committee’s Views in Maroufidou v. Sweden are relevant in his case. He also contests the 14 See European Court of Human Rights, Soering v. the United Kingdom (application No. 14038/88), judgment of 7 July 1989; F. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 17341/03), judgment of 22 June 2004, and Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 27034/05), judgment of 28 February 2006. 5