CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014 already considered the same information and views in its decision of 3 March 2014.8 The State party further submits that the authors are in fact trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of their claim for asylum reassessed. The State party emphasizes that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of fact of the Board, which is better placed than the Committee to assess the facts in the authors’ case. The Board is a collegial body of a quasi-judicial nature. It made its decisions on the basis of a procedure during which the authors had the opportunity to present their views, in writing and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel, and conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case. 4.7 The State party submits that the criterion according to which the Board considers the conditions for granting a residence permit under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act to be met can generally be expressed as a requirement that the relevant asylum seeker has a wellfounded fear of being subjected to specific, individual persecution of a certain severity if returned to his country of origin. 4.8 As regards the harassment described by I.G., the Board, in its decision of 13 June 2013, found it to be a fact that he had been accosted and beaten by slightly older boys from his school on Friday, 25 May 2012 after he had replied to questions about Christian traditions during a school break earlier in the day. Moreover, the Board found to be factual the authors’ statements that they had been been sought out after church the following Sunday, 27 May 2012 by two senior pupils from the school and two slightly older men, who had hit the authors and pushed R.G.’s two minor daughters. The State party, however, recalls the Board’s conclusion that the authors had not had any conflicts with the Pakistani authorities, nor had they reported the two incidents to the authorities, and that the isolated incidents relating to I.G.’s disagreement with a few schoolmates could not lead to the authors being granted protection status under section 7 of the Aliens Act or under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, since the conflict was of a private nature and was not of an intensity or nature that could justify asylum. 4.9 The Board could not find factual the authors’ statements about the arson attack on the family’s home that had allegedly taken place after church on 27 May 2012. The Board found that R.G.’s statements about the fire had appeared uncertain and fabricated for the occasion, especially because R.G. had not been able to accurately and consistently explain where she was in her home when she discovered that one of the rooms was on fire, when the fire took place, the whereabouts of the individual family members when the fire started, whether R.G. had witnessed the arson attack and whether she knew the perpetrators’ identities. The State party observes that both R.G. and I.G. had their statements read out to them at the interviews conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 16 August 2012, 29 January 2013 and 11 February 2013 and that neither of them had experienced any problem of interpretation or made comments related to the inconsistencies referred to by the Board. The State party therefore relies entirely on the decisions made by the Board on 13 June 2013, according to which R.G.’s detailed statement about the circumstances concerning the fire, which is a crucial part of the authors’ grounds for seeking asylum, appeared to be so incoherent, inaccurate and on certain points inconsistent that the details could not be found to be factual. 4.10 In connection with the authors’ request to have their asylum proceedings reopened by the Board, the State party argues that the authors referred to the conflict experienced by G and his wife. The authors’ counsel observed that the authors’ conflict in their country of origin in May 2012 and the wedding ceremony of G and his wife in April 2012 took place at almost the same time and that it could therefore not be ruled out that the authors’ conflict 8 The decision by which the Board refused to reopen the authors’ asylum proceedings. 7