CCPR/C/127/D/2654/2015 relevance of the Views in Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, arguing that in that case the Committee examined an alleged violation of article 14, whereas in the present case article 13 of the Covenant is at issue. 5.3 As to the merits, the author refers to the UNHCR registration form and submits that the Refugee Appeals Board violated the 1951 Convention and the Covenant by not respecting the assessment of UNHCR. The author also contends that, not only in this particular case but also in other cases concerning asylum requests by ethnic Kachins from Myanmar, the Refugee Appeals Board has repeatedly disregarded the assessment of UNHCR acknowledging the refugee status of these petitioners and recommending their resettlement. The author notes that the Board nonetheless ignored these evaluations, not on the ground of a change in the human rights situation in Myanmar, but simply by claiming that the concerned persons “had never been refugees”. 5.4 The author further submits that the Refugee Appeals Board’s reasoning is logically flawed because once it has been established that he performed forced labour for the armed forces, which is in itself a breach of article 8 of the Covenant, it is erroneous to infer that he was not in “an adversarial position with the local authorities” as a result of the incidents described. He also states that because the Board did not take any steps to see his file from UNHCR, the State party violated articles 7 (procedural obligations) and 13 of the Covenant. Lastly, the author reiterates his arguments alleging a violation of articles 18, 19 and 26 of the Covenant.15 Additional observations by the State party 6.1 On 3 February 2017, the State party argued that the author’s additional observations of 13 September 2016 seem to provide no essentially new or specific information on his personal situation. 6.2 Concerning the author’s complaint about the State party’s failure to respect the assessment carried out by UNHCR in his case, the State party submits that it did not disregard the evaluation conducted by UNHCR in 2009 but, rather, made an independent assessment as to whether the author met the conditions for asylum at the time of his case being considered by the Board under the applicable Danish law. 6.3 As regards the author’s assertions on the alleged persecution of Kachins by the local authorities, the State party, referring to several country reports, submits that the general human rights situation has improved considerably in Myanmar since 2009. 16 6.4 Accordingly, the State party maintains that the complaint should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee examine the complaint on the merits, the State party is of the view that there has been no violation of the rights of the author under articles 7, 13, 18, 19 and 26 of the Covenant. 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 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 In accordance with article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same 15 16 6 The author does not provide any arguments in addition to those already provided in his first submission. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Human rights priority country status report: January to June 2016”, updated on 8 February 2017 (available from www.gov.uk/government/publications/burma-human-rights-priority-country/human-rightspriority-country-update-report-january-to-june-2016); and United States, Department of State, “Burma 2015 human rights report”, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015 (available from https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/252963.pdf).