Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/3188/2018 4.6 The State party asserts that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case of violation of articles 6 and/or 7 of the ICCPR and invites the Committee to find the communication inadmissible for being manifestly ill founded on the basis that it lacks merit. 4.7 The State Party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 31 on the nature of the general legal obligations under the Covenant as they relate to non-refoulement. It notes the importance of establishing that the risk of harm under articles 6 and 7 risk is, personal with the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish a real risk of irreparable harm being high.11 4.8 Further, the State Party refers to its domestic legislation, which reflects its obligations under the Covenant in relation to articles 6 and 7, in sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Aliens Act, 12 and notes the Committee’s previous findings that there had been no irregularity in State Party’s decision making process.13 It refers to the Committee’s established position that it is generally for the organs of state parties to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists, unless it is found that the assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. It provides further support for this contention in the precedent of the European Court of human rights. 14 4.9 The State Party asserts that the author has failed to establish that the assessment of the R.A.B. was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. It also submits that the author has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factor that the R.A.B. failed to take into account in reaching its decision. It further states that the author challenges only the assessment of the circumstances of his case and the factual conclusions reached. The State Party therefore submits that the author is attempting to use the Committee to have the facts and circumstances of his asylum claim reassessed in the hope of achieving a more favourable outcome. 4.10 The State Party notes that the author’s case was considered before two instances and, in the latter case, the author was allowed to submit evidence orally and in writing and was providedwith llegal counsel. It states that the Board carried out a comprehensive and thorough examination of the author’s statements along with all the other evidence in the case. 4.11 It explains that, while the decisions of the R.A.B. are final, judicial review of its determinations can be applied for where there exists grounds of error of law or procedure or the exercise of unlawful discretion.15 4.12 In reference to the R.A.B.’s assessment of the author’s credibility, the State Party contends that this comprised an implicit overall assessment of the asylum-seeker’s statements and demeanour during proceedings before the RAB, as well as all the other material in the case, including country information. In doing so, the State Party asserts that the RAB considers whether the statements are coherent, likely and consistent. If it is foundthat the claimant’s explanation cannot be assumed, it will typically provide, in its reasoning some, but not necessarily all, examples of inconsistencies found. 11 12 13 A.A.I. and A.H.A. v. Denmark and Jossefe Jacob Mekonen v. Denmark Communication No 2007/2010, para. 9.2. Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Aliens Act a residence permit will be issued to an alien on application if the alien falls within the definition of person in need of protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Under section 7 (2) a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the case of his return to his country of origin. A.S.M. and R.A.H. v. Denmark, Communication No. 2378/2014, paras 8.3 and 8.6; P.T. v. Denmark, Communication No. 2272/2013, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3, N v. Denmark, Communication No. 2426/2014, Z v. Denmark, Communication No. 2392/2014, para. 7.4, adopted on 15 July 2015, Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, Communication No. 2186/2012, para 7.5, S v. Denmark and H.A. v. Denmark, Communication No. 2328/2014, adopted 9 July 2018, S v. Denmark and H.A. v. Denmark, ,Communication No. 2328/2014, adopted 9 July 2018. 14 MO v Switzerland, application 41282/16, para. 80, adopted on 20 June 2012 5