CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee notes, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, in which it has stated that authors of communications must exhaust all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.5 The Committee notes that the author unsuccessfully appealed the negative asylum decision before the Danish Refugee Appeals Board and that the State party does not challenge the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author. The Committee, therefore, considers that it is not prevented from considering the present communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are the only decisions that are final without possibility of appeal before the national courts and that the State party has thus violated article 14 of the Covenant. In that regard, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence, in which it has stated that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1), but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant.6 Article 13 of the Covenant offers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal.7 The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claim under article 14 is inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee notes the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant that, if returned to Nigeria, she would be at risk of being killed or tortured. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 are unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the author has provided sufficient substantiation regarding those claims and therefore considers that part of the communication admissible. 6.6 The Committee notes that the author invokes a violation of her rights under articles 2, 18, 26 and 27, in conjunction with articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and under articles 3 and 13, of the Covenant. The Committee observes that the author has not provided any information to substantiate those claims and she has failed to provide sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider that the facts of the communication raise issues under those articles of the Covenant. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate her claims that the State party would violated articles 2, 5 6 7 8 See communications No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 7.4; and No. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5. See, communications No. 2186/2012, X and X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 6.3; No. 1494/2006, A.C. v. The Netherlands, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 2008, para. 8.4; and No. 1234/2003, P.K. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 20 March 2007, paras. 7.4 and 7.5. See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62.