CCPR/C/115/D/2344/2014 return has been the subject of review by both an administrative authority and two court instances. The State party recalls that the District Court refused to grant a stay of execution pending the completion of court proceedings, a decision later upheld by the High Court of Eastern Denmark on 15 November 2013. On 20 December 2013, the appeals permission board dismissed the authors’ application to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. 4.11 The hearing on the merits of the authors’ case, which will assess their asylum application and their right to appeal to the refugee appeals board, has been scheduled for 24 April 2014 by the District Court of Copenhagen. 4.12 The State party considers the authors’ claim under article 6 to be manifestly unsubstantiated. It adds that, through the interim measures issued by the Committee, the authors have managed to continue their stay in Denmark until completion of the legal proceedings concerning their residence permits. 4.13 Concerning article 14 of the Covenant, the State party refers to paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Committee’s general comment No. 32 and notes that asylum proceedings do not constitute civil rights and obligations and thus fall outside the scope of article 14. Should the Committee nonetheless find that asylum proceedings do fall within the scope of article 14, the State party submits that the authors have failed to establish that they have been deprived of their rights under this provision. 4.14 Regarding the authors’ claim under article 14 that they were not provided with a lawyer, the State party stresses that article 14 (3) (d) only applies to criminal cases. Therefore, whether or not asylum proceedings fall within the scope of article 14, the authors’ arguments fall outside the scope of this provision. 4.15 Concerning article 26 and the authors’ contention that, by giving access to appeal to other asylum seekers in a comparable situation the State party discriminated against them, the State party acknowledges that access to appeal to the refugee appeals board has been granted in a few cases concerning Albanian asylum seekers who claimed fear of blood revenge as their grounds for seeking asylum. However, such cases naturally vary in intensity and nature. In any event, it cannot be stated that the procedure implied discrimination or a lack of equality before the law with respect to the authors. 4.16 Against this background, the State party concludes that the authors’ communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission and that it should be declared inadmissible. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 12 May 2014, the authors submitted that, thanks to the interim measures demanded by the Committee and respected by the State party, they could attend the hearing held on 24 April 2014 by the District Court of Copenhagen. A verdict is expected on 22 May 2014. 5.2 The authors reiterate their previous submission. They also note that it is unclear as to which specific ground of section 53 (b) (1) the negative decision in their case was taken, as the preliminary proposal to the Danish Refugee Council referred to subsection (ii), (iii) and (vi).2 5.3 The authors contest the decision of the District Court of Copenhagen of 18 September 2013 and the appeal decision of the High Court of Eastern Denmark of 15 November 2013 not to suspend their deportations while their legal cases on the merits are still pending before Danish courts. They add that a stay of execution is often issued in cases 2 6 See note 1 above reproducing section 53 (b) (1) of the Aliens Act.