CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015 the Covenant,2 serious procedural flaws in the conduct of the domestic review proceedings 3 or the inability of the State party to provide a reasonable justification for its decision.4 7. In the present case, the majority of the Committee points to two possible procedural flaws in the asylum proceedings in Denmark: the failure to consider the risk implications of the extramarital affair, and the dismissal by the State party of the document alleging the killing of F.M.’s brother due to the prevalence in Afghanistan of forged official documents (para. 9.7). We disagree with this aspect of the majority’s analysis as well. 8. The multiple inconsistencies in the authors’ version of events have led the State party to find as factually unsubstantiated the allegation that the authors escaped from their families (para. 4.11). It also noted that “running away” is no longer a prosecutable crime under Afghanistan law (para. 4.11). In these circumstances, the authors have to demonstrate – which they have not – that married couples like them actually face in Afghanistan a real risk of persecution for pre-marriage sexual relations, and to establish that the specific details of their personal history would be well known in Afghanistan and likely to attract the attention of the authorities or society at large. 9. In the same vein, we cannot conclude that the position of the State party, according to which – in the particular circumstances of the case – independent verification of the document attesting to the brother’s death was not warranted, is unreasonable. We note in this regard that the authors did not explain how such a verification could have cured the very serious credibility problems attaching to their claims relating to the circumstances under which they left Afghanistan and the circumstances surrounding the murder. 10. In light of these factors, we do not consider it well-established that the proceedings suffered from a procedural defect that should lead us to doubt the outcome of the asylum process or its fairness. 2 3 4 For example, Hamida v. Canada (CCPR/C/98/D/1544/2007), paras. 8.4-8.6. E.g., X. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/110/D/1908/2009), para. 11.5. E.g., Byahuranga v. Denmark (CCPR/C/82/D/1222/2003), paras. 11.3-11.4. 17