CCPR/C/119/D/2293/2013 China the texts on Falun Gong, whereas E had testified that D had not known about the texts and had become angry upon discovering this. The Board deemed it unlikely that the Chinese authorities would have let the authors go after having found the illegal books in E’s parents’ store. In this respect, the Board noted that the authors’ passports had been renewed at the Chinese Embassy in Copenhagen in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The Board further noted that the incident in China had taken place five and a half years ago, and that the authors had not applied for asylum until four and a half years later. 4.6 In response to the authors’ request dated 7 October 2013 to summon G for testimony, on 8 October 2013, the secretariat of the Refugee Appeals Board informed the authors’ counsel by telephone that G would not be summoned to the Board hearing, but that the Board would determine at the hearing whether he was to be examined if he appeared, and whether he would be summoned if he did not appear of his own volition. At the hearing on 10 October 2013, G did not appear before the Board. On the same date, the Board decided not to adjourn proceedings in order to issue a summons for G, and upheld the decision issued by the Danish Immigration Service. Given its observations on the authors’ statements, the Board found that it could not be expected to attach significance, in relation to its credibility assessment, to the potential testimony of G, who had allegedly given the books to the authors. The Board also noted that G had no first-hand knowledge about the events that had taken place in China. 4.7 The authors’ claims under articles 7 and 26 are inadmissible due to a lack of substantiation. It has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the authors would risk being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if they were returned to China, or that they have been subjected to discrimination. The authors have been treated no differently from any other person applying for asylum. 4.8 The authors’ claim under article 14 is inadmissible because it is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. Asylum proceedings do not constitute civil rights and obligations and therefore fall outside the scope of article 14. 4.9 The communication is also without merit. The domestic decisions were made on the basis of a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence. With the assistance of legal counsel, the authors had an opportunity to present their views to the Refugee Appeals Board, both in writing and orally. Reiterating the reasons mentioned in paragraph 4.6, the State party adds that the authors, who are relatively well-educated, have not plausibly explained why they voluntarily contacted the Chinese authorities in Denmark when they allegedly feared them. D stated during the hearing before the Board that he was not afraid of visiting the Chinese Embassy. The authors also gave inconsistent statements concerning the number of books they had brought to China. During their interviews with the Danish Immigration Service, D stated that he had brought three copies, whereas E stated that they had brought two copies. During their asylum interviews, they each stated that they had brought two copies. 4.10 G did not appear at the Board hearing despite the fact that the authors’ counsel had been informed ahead of time that, if he did appear, the Board could determine at the hearing whether he was to be examined. The Board did, however, consider the testimony of D’s mother. As opposed to G, D’s mother was with the authors during their stay in China in 2008 and was thus able to give first-hand evidence on the authors’ grounds for seeking asylum. In response to the authors’ assertion that a request for an investigation cannot be denied if it could bear on a credibility assessment, the State party considers that determining the appropriateness of producing witnesses must be left to the relevant domestic authorities. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In submissions dated 30 July and 5 August 2014 and 9 September 2015, the authors maintain that, contrary to the State party’s assertion, they did not accept the administrative expulsion order and a two-year re-entry ban. In fact, they did not sign the relevant document for fear that their lives would be endangered upon return to China. 4