CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015 Refugee Appeals Board is free to assess evidence; such an assessment is therefore not governed by special rules of evidence. 6.3 The Board seeks to determine which submissions can be regarded as facts. If they appear coherent and consistent, the Board will normally regard the statements as facts. When the asylum seeker’s statements are characterized throughout the proceedings by inconsistencies, changing statements, expansions or omissions, the Board will attempt to clarify the reasons. In many cases, the asylum seeker’s statements will become more detailed and accurate in the course of the proceedings. There may be various reasons for this, such as developments in the proceedings and the asylum seeker’s particular situation, which the Board will include in its assessment of the asylum seeker’s credibility. 6.4 However, inconsistent statements made by the asylum seeker about crucial parts of his or her grounds for seeking asylum may weaken the asylum seeker’s credibility. One of the circumstances that the Board will take into account is the asylum seeker’s explanation for the inconsistencies. It will take into account the asylum seeker’s particular situation, such as cultural differences, age and health. Particular consideration is shown to asylum seekers who are illiterate. 6.5 It follows from paragraphs 206 to 219 of the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status that, in certain situations, it may be necessary, owing to the asylum seeker’s age or mental state, to place greater emphasis on objective circumstances than on the statements made by the asylum seeker during the proceedings. The Refugee Appeals Board will assess the asylum seeker’s procedural capacity and generally be less demanding when it comes to the burden of proof in cases of child asylum seekers or asylum seekers with a mental disorder or impairment. Lastly, the Board will always assess the extent to which the principle of the benefit of the doubt should be applied if it is in doubt about the asylum seeker’s credibility. 6.6 The Refugee Appeals Board took into account the particular situation of the authors, including the circumstance that F.M. is illiterate. R.M., however, attended school for eight years and private English lessons for eight months. The information given in the authors’ observations of 17 November 2016 that R.M. is “poorly educated” is therefore incorrect. Also, the cases cited by the authors are not comparable with the authors’ case. Authors’ additional observations 7.1 On 11 August 2017, the authors contested the State party’s assessment that they are trying to use the Committee as an appellate body. In several cases, the State party has not respected the Committee’s recommendations. 7.2 R.M. had a very good job in Afghanistan, working with his father at their own company, which employed several workers. He enjoyed a good standard of living, so had no reason to leave Afghanistan if not for the conflict he invokes. The authors could have had “a significantly better life” in Afghanistan than they have in Denmark, where they are asylum seekers. This circumstance should also be included in the assessment of their credibility by the Committee. The Committee may also assess the factual circumstances of this case, not only the Refugee Appeals Board, as declared by the State party. 7.3 Even if R.M. went to school for eight years, there were several periods of time when he did not attend because of the war. Furthermore, his eight-month English course involved one and a half hours twice a week. 7.4 It is impossible for the authors to return to Afghanistan. R.M.’s aunt lives next to F.M.’s uncle, so the families will be alerted if the authors return. The authors now have three children, so it would be difficult for them to settle elsewhere in Afghanistan where they do not have family. Their story has also been exposed through press coverage and television; their application for asylum in Denmark is public knowledge, which would also make it difficult for them to return to Afghanistan. 11