CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015 Committee, cannot not be accorded any evidential value either. The Board emphasized the timing of the production of the document and its contents, noting also that the date of the authors’ flight from home given in the document as 23 July 2010 does not accord with the information provided by R.M., that they escaped from Afghanistan on 13 September 2010. 4.14 When deciding whether to request verification of the authenticity of documents produced by an asylum seeker, the Refugee Appeals Board makes an overall assessment of, inter alia, the nature and contents of documents in conjunction with the prospect of whether such verification could lead to a different assessment of the evidence, the timing and circumstances of the production of the documents, and of the credibility of the asylum seeker’s statement in the light of the general background information available on conditions in the country. The Board is under no obligation to request verification of authenticity in all cases in which an asylum seeker presents documents strengthening the grounds for asylum. In J.K. and Others v. Sweden, the European Court of Human Rights did not question the fact that the Swedish authorities had not requested verification of the authenticity of the documents produced. False documents are widely available in Afghanistan, indeed there is a black market for them.24 On the basis of the information available in the case and the nature and contents of the documents produced, the Refugee Appeals Board found no reason to request a verification. 4.15 Allegations on F.M.’s mental health have not been substantiated. It is also of no relevance to the assessment of whether the authors risk persecution falling within section 7 of the Aliens Act should they return to Afghanistan. The authors’ case is moreover not comparable to that of A.H. v. Denmark as the circumstances are considerably different. 4.16 The fact that the authors had appeared on Danish television and had repeated the stories that the Board had not considered to be facts could not lead to a different assessment of the matter, given that the Board had dismissed the authors’ statements on their grounds for asylum. There is no reason to assume that the authors risk persecution, as the information provided on the television programme cannot be deemed to be correct. Moreover, according to their own statements, the authors have not experienced any problems with the Afghan authorities, and therefore appear to be considered low-profile individuals in all respects by them. 4.17 In conclusion, the Refugee Appeals Board took into account all relevant information and the general background information on conditions in Afghanistan. The Committee’s established jurisprudence is that due weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and it is generally up to States parties to review and evaluate facts and evidence, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The present communication has not brought to light any new specific details as to the authors’ situation. The authors have failed to identify any irregularity in the decisionmaking process or any risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. They are trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of their claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee, which, however, must give considerable weight to the findings made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances in the authors’ case. There is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessments made by the Board, according to which the authors have failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that they would risk the death penalty or be in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Afghanistan. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In their comments of 17 November 2016, the authors maintain that their return to Afghanistan would breach articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and that they “have no further comments on possible violations under articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant.” 5.2 The State party appears to base its assessment of credibility on an inappropriately high standard of proof in asylum proceedings. The Refugee Appeals Board used the “probable” 24 8 Danish Immigration Service, Country of Origin Information for Use in the Asylum Determination Process, May 2012, p. 50 et seq.