CCPR/C/119/D/2530/2015 considered that there was no basis for postponing the case in order to allow F to undergo a medical examination for signs of torture. 4.3 The State party considers that the communication is inadmissible because it is manifestly unfounded. The authors have not established that there are substantial grounds for believing that their rights under articles 7, 9 or 18 (1) would be violated if they were returned to Egypt. The Board included all relevant information in its decisions. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, significant weight should be given to the State party’s assessment, unless it is found that this evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The authors are attempting to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of their claim reassessed. 4.4 Concerning their claims under articles 7 and 18 (1), the authors made several materially inconsistent statements at various times during the asylum process concerning: the incidents that caused F to be hospitalized; the number of times F was admitted to hospital; the vandalism of their apartment; when F had surgery; where the authors had stayed after F’s discharge from hospital; and the amount of time they had spent at various locations before leaving Egypt. Specifically, on different occasions: (a) the authors provided three different responses concerning where they went after F’s discharge from hospital (G stated that they had returned to their apartment at that time, and on another occasion stated that they had gone instead to her parents’ house, whereas F stated that they had gone to the residence of F’s parents’ relatives); (b) G alternately stated that the authors had learned that their apartment had been vandalized when they had returned to the apartment themselves, when the cafeteria staff had called them, and when the caretaker of the apartment had called them; (c) F alternately stated that he had not returned home after the vandalism, and that he had been personally present during the vandalism;4 (d) whereas F stated that he had been hospitalized twice (once upon his release from prison owing to heart problems, and later in order to have open-heart surgery for artery replacement), G stated that F had also been hospitalized after fainting owing to an incident at the beginning of the New Year (specifically, while staying with G’s parents, the authors had found a wrecked car in front of the house with a threatening letter stating, “We will not leave you in peace, and you will never see your children again”); (e) although G had not previously raised this allegation, she stated before the Board that, while the authors were staying with her parents, members of the Muslim Brotherhood had assaulted her and her family on two occasions, and that on the second occasion, they had beaten G’s mother after forcing their way into the house, thereby causing F to suffer another blood clot (this allegation was not raised by F); and (f) F stated that the authors had stayed at the monastery outside Alexandria for 21 days in January 2014 until they left Egypt, whereas G stated that they had stayed at the monastery for several months. These inconsistencies are not simply a matter of chronology and relate to crucial elements of the authors’ claims. In particular, the vandalism of the authors’ apartment constitutes such a critical element of their claim that they should be able to describe the manner in which they learned about it without material inconsistencies. The State party echoes the Board’s finding that the assistance G provided to her neighbour does not qualify as missionary activity and is not in and of itself a ground for asylum. 4.5 Regarding F’s claim under article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee has not considered that this provision has extraterritorial effect. The European Court of Human Rights has stated that, in order for the prohibition on arbitrary detention to apply in a case involving removal, the applicant would have to face a real risk of a flagrant breach of this prohibition, and that the threshold for this test is high.5 The authors have failed to meet this high threshold. 4.6 The authors’ claim under article 18 (1) is inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae. Denmark cannot be held responsible for violations of article 18 that another State 4 5 4 The State party maintains that in order to explain this inconsistency to F, the interpreter made a drawing to show the two sequences of events by arrows and indications of time in Arabic, and F then stated that he had not been in the flat when it was vandalized. The State party cites Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom (application No. 8139/09), judgment of 17 January 2012.