CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015 3.10 The authors lastly admit small discrepancies in R.M.’s accounts before the Danish authorities, mainly because R.M. “lacks a mathematical understanding of time”, and when speaking of calendar months, he does not use the calendar system used in Western countries. R.M. acknowledges his duty to substantiate the grounds for seeking asylum, but any reasonable doubt should benefit the person applying for asylum. Explanations should be completely non-credible in order to refuse asylum and the Immigration Service should not use the standard of “not being convinced.” State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its submission of 15 July 2016, the State party declared that that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee declare it admissible, articles 6, 7, 17 and 23 of the Covenant would not be violated if the authors and their two children are returned to Afghanistan. 4.2 On 10 December 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen proceedings because the authors had not provided any new information and because, on 22 October 2013, the Board had already made an overall assessment of the information provided, in conjunction with background information on Afghanistan. In its decision of 2013, the Board did not rule out the possibility of extramarital affairs in Afghanistan, but found it unlikely that the authors had had sexual intercourse at F.M.’s house several times and thus exposed themselves to an obvious risk of being subjected to serious sanctions from both their families and the authorities. 4.3 In its decision of 3 June 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board considered that no evidential value could be accorded to the documents produced by the authors because they appeared to have been fabricated for the occasion. It thus analysed the nature and the contents of those documents. It first observed that, according to the Country of Origin Information for Use in the Asylum Determination Process published by the Danish Immigration Service in May 2012, false documents were widely available in Afghanistan and there was a black market for such documents. The date of 23 July 2010 cited in the document for the authors’ flight from home did not correspond to R.M.’s declaration that they had left Afghanistan on 13 September 2010; nor did it fully accord with R.M.’s statement that his brother was killed on 12 July 2011, that is, more than a year later. Moreover, the authors’ statements on the sequence of events do not accord with the age of their first child; the child was born on 23 February 2011, and must therefore have been conceived around 23 May 2010. The sequence of events with respect to the moment when F.M. realized that she was pregnant, her forced engagement, her announcement of pregnancy to R.M., their journey from home and their departure, namely, all the grounds on which the request for asylum was based, do not accord with the statements made. 4.4 The Board also found it peculiar that the authors had not found any reason to verify their statements until almost two years after their applications for asylum had been refused by the Board. The Danish authorities have continually invited them to produce documentation. According to their own statements, the authors stayed in Greece for more than a year, during which they continued to have contact with R.M.’s family, and they allegedly asked R.M.’s father to obtain a document confirming that his brother had been killed. The Board therefore found no reason to request verification of the relevant documents. Lastly, the circumstance that the authors appeared on Danish television could not lead to a different assessment. The Board has dismissed the authors’ statements on their grounds for asylum; therefore, there was no reason to assume that they risk persecution given that the information provided in the television programme cannot be deemed to be correct. 4.5 The authors have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility, in the absence of substantial grounds for believing that they and their children are in danger of being deprived of their life or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Afghanistan. The communication is therefore manifestly unfounded. 4.6 Moreover, the authors are seeking to apply the obligations under articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant in an extraterritorial manner. This part is also incompatible ratione loci and ratione materiae with the provisions of the Covenant. Denmark cannot be held responsible for violations of articles 17 and 23 that another State party is expected to commit. 5