CCPR/C/115/D/2344/2014 The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that, if returned to Albania, the threat of blood feud will put their lives at risk amounting to a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors also claim that the rejection of their asylum application as “manifestly unfounded”, without a proper investigation or a possibility of an effective appeal to the refugee board or the courts; the failure to be provided with a lawyer; and the denial to suspend the decision of the immigration service that prevented them from defending themselves before the court, constitute a violation of their rights under article 14 of the Covenant. 3.3 The authors further claim that, since other asylum seekers in similar cases have been given the right to appeal to the refugee board, their denial of that right was discriminatory, contrary to article 26 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 7 April 2014, the State party presented its observations on admissibility. It submitted that the authors had failed to sufficiently substantiate their claims to be regarded as “victims” and that the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible. 4.2 The State party recalls that the authors’ case was determined on the basis of the shortened procedure intended for the examination of asylum applications that are deemed manifestly unfounded. For the purposes of asylum law, the immigration authorities consider Albania to be a safe third country, which implies that asylum applications from Albanian nationals will usually be examined under the so-called “manifestly unfounded” procedure. 4.3 If the immigration service finds that an application for a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act is manifestly unfounded, the case is submitted to the Danish Refugee Council, a humanitarian, non-governmental organization. The Council issues an opinion on the case after a personal interview with the asylum seeker(s). If the Council agrees with the assessment of the immigration service to the effect that the application is manifestly unfounded, the application is refused. That decision cannot be appealed to the refugee appeals board. If, by contrast, the Council disagrees with the assessment of the immigration service, the application is processed according to the normal procedure, and the decision is automatically appealed to the board, which makes the final decision in the case. The State party further explains that it follows from section 53 (b) (1) of the Aliens Act that, upon submission to the Council, the immigration service may determine that a decision to refuse a residence permit under section 7 cannot be appealed to the board if the application must be considered manifestly unfounded under section 53 (b) (1) of the Aliens Act.1 1 4 An application is considered manifestly unfounded where: • The identity claimed by the applicant is manifestly incorrect (para. (i)) • It is manifest that the circumstances invoked by the applicant cannot lead to the issuance of a residence permit under section 7 (para. (ii)) • It is manifest that the circumstances invoked by the applicant cannot lead to the issuance of a residence permit under section 7 according to the practice of the refugee appeals board (para. (iii)) • The circumstances invoked by the applicant are in manifest disagreement with general background information on the situation in the applicant’s country of origin or former country of residence (para. (iv)) • The circumstances invoked by the applicant are in manifest disagreement with other specific information on the applicant’s situation (para. (v))