CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013 4.2 The State party informs the Committee that, on 19 December 2013, the author filed a new application for reconsideration of her asylum request to the Danish Refugee Appeals Board. She claimed that several news broadcasts from a Danish television station had mentioned her story, showed her face and given her real name, therefore she had become highly profiled. She also informed the authorities that her new place of residence was the Red Cross Asylum Centre at Avnstrup. 4.3 On 24 February 2014, the Appeals Board refused to re-open asylum proceedings for the author as there were no substantial grounds for believing that she was in danger of being deprived of her life or being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if she returned to Nigeria. The State party maintains that the author is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in favour of having her claim for asylum reassessed. The State party submits that the Committee should give considerable weight to the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board which is better placed to assess the facts in the author’s case. 4.4 The State party submits that the decisions of the Appeals Board rejecting the author’s asylum request were based on a comprehensive and thorough examination of her case. It found that even though it might be true that the author had received a death threat by telephone, she had failed to render probable that she would be at a real risk of persecution, as required by section 7(1) of the Aliens Act, or of abuse, as required by section 7(2) of the Aliens Act, if returned to Nigeria. She received a telephone threat once only; her allegations about the human trafficking network in Nigeria were vague and lacked details; and the fact that her case was broadcast on Danish television does not enable the Board to conclude that she would be at real risk of persecution in Nigeria. Furthermore, according to reports,3 the Nigerian authorities are making an effort to combat human trafficking and its consequences, and several organizations in Nigeria provide assistance to victims of human trafficking and prostitution. 4.5 The State party acknowledges that victims of human trafficking who fear persecution in their country of origin may apply for asylum. However, the fact that a person is a victim of human trafficking does not, in itself, justify asylum, nor does the victim’s cooperation with the police or other authorities to find and prosecute human traffickers automatically make the victim eligible for asylum. In all asylum cases, the asylum authorities assess whether there is basis for granting asylum under the rules in force in Denmark. 4.6 The State party submits that the author’s right to a fair trial has not been infringed because the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be appealed before the national courts. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (paras. 16 and 17) and maintains that asylum proceedings do not constitute a suit at law to determine civil rights and obligations and therefore they fall outside the scope of article 14. It notes that the European Court of Human Rights has consistently excluded asylum and expulsion proceedings from the scope of application of the similarly-phrased article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 4.7 The State party provides a detailed description of the asylum proceedings under the Aliens Act, in particular of the organization and competence of the Refugee Appeals Board. It points out that the Appeals Board is an independent and quasi-judicial body that is considered a court within the meaning of article 39 of the Council of the European Union Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (2005/85/EC). Pursuant to section 56(8) of the Aliens Act, 3 6 See footnotes 1 and 2 above.