CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013 governmental organizations had made substantial efforts to provide assistance to female victims of human trafficking who had returned to take up residence in Nigeria.2 Based on that, the Appeals Board concluded that the fact that the author had been mentioned in two televised broadcasts in Denmark would not change its decision regarding her request for asylum in Denmark. 2.12 On 3 June 2013, the author filed a new application for reconsideration of her asylum request before the Refugee Appeals Board. On 1 July 2013, the Appeals Board decided not to consider the author’s application for reconsideration, in accordance to section 33(8) of the Aliens Act, since her place of residence was unknown. It stated that, according to the Danish Immigration Service accommodation database, she had disappeared from the Avnstrup Asylum Centre on 11 June 2013 and was showing as “wanted” in the system of the Immigration Centre of the National Police Force. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that the State party would violate her rights under articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights if she were to be returned to Nigeria. She also claims that her rights under articles 2, 18, 26 and 27, read in conjunction with articles 3, 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Covenant has been violated by the State party. 3.2 The author claims that if she returned to Nigeria, she would be at risk of being killed and tortured in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. She states that Mr. P.B. and Ms. B.O. were sentenced and imprisoned because she reported them to the Danish police and produced testimony against them before the court and that she had received death threats before and after their trial. Furthermore, she submits that the State party is obliged to provide full protection to her as a witness and a person who reported a case of human trafficking. 3.3 She claims that after the Appeals Board decision was handed down, several news broadcasts from a Danish television station had mentioned her story, showed her face and given her real name. As such, she had become highly profiled and was at a higher risk of being killed by Mr. P.B. or Ms. B.O. or by persons linked to the human trafficking network in Nigeria. 3.4 She contends that shelters for victims of human trafficking in Nigeria are not safe; that persons involved in human trafficking have the means and power to reach her; and that bribery is common practice in Nigeria. Against that background, she argues that she would not receive any protection from the Nigerian authorities if needed. 3.5 The author maintains that her right under article 14 of the Covenant has been violated because the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be appealed before the Danish courts. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 2 April 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It maintains that the communication should be declared inadmissible for non-substantiation and for lack of competence ratione materiae. However, should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the State party maintains that the Covenant has not and would not be violated if the author and her child are returned to Nigeria. 2 The authorities referred to the United Kingdom, Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Nigeria (January 2013); and Freedom House, “Countries at the Crossroads 2012: Nigeria” (20 September 2012). 5