CCPR/C/125/D/2345/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 As to the State party’s argument that the author’s claim under article 6 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation, the Committee notes that the information submitted to it does not provide sufficient grounds to believe that the author’s forcible return to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of a violation of his right to life. The author’s contentions in this respect are general allegations mentioning the risk of being killed because of his conversion to Christianity, without advancing however any arguments in support of his claim. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 6 of the Covenant and therefore declares this part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 13 of the Covenant that he was unable to appeal the negative decisions of the Board to a judicial body. In that regard, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence, according to which this provision offers asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal to judicial bodies.25 The Committee therefore concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate this particular claim under article 13 of the Covenant, and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee further notes that the author also claimed a violation of articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant, since the decision of 6 February 2014 refusing to reopen his asylum proceedings was made by the Board’s secretariat with the approval of the Board’s Chair and not by the Board. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that the author’s asylum proceedings, including his request that his case be reopened, were conducted in conformity with Danish law and that he had been treated no differently than any other person applying for asylum. The Committee observes that the author had the opportunity to submit and challenge evidence concerning his forcible return to Afghanistan and had his asylum application examined by the Danish Immigration Service and reviewed by the Board and by the Board’s Chair, who, inter alia, examined the new sur place asylum grounds and evidence submitted by the author. The Committee considers, consequently, that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims concerning the procedure before the Board under articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant for purposes of admissibility, and that this part of the communication must therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 Finally, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims with respect to articles 7 and 18 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation. However, the Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has adequately explained the reasons why he fears that his forcible return to Afghanistan would result in a risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the 25 For example, Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013), para. 6.4; and S.Z. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015), para. 7.12. See also 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. 13