CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015 4.7 On the merits, the authors have not provided any new information that has not already been reviewed by the Refugee Appeals Board. The State party points to discrepancies in the authors’ declarations before the Danish authorities as to the timing of their sexual intercourse,18 as to the manner in which F.M. announced her pregnancy to R.M.,19 as to their contact after they had had sexual intercourse for the second time,20 as to the time elapsed since F.M.’s forced engagement until their escape,21 as to the killing of R.M.’s brother,22 and as to F.M.’s cousin.23 As pointed out by the Refugee Appeals Board when it announced its decision not to reopen their case on 10 December 2014, when assessing the inconsistencies in the authors’ statements, the Board had taken into account, on the one hand, the time elapsed since their departure from Afghanistan and the fact that they were illiterate and, on the other, the fact that the inconsistencies were substantial and concerned otherwise very simple grounds for asylum and a very short period of time, with a sequence of events that seems less probable. 4.8 In its assessment of the authors’ secret relationship, the Refugee Appeals Board also took into account relevant background information. According to a report on the fact-finding mission of the Danish Immigration Service to Kabul from 25 February 2012 to 4 March 2012, published in May 2012, an independent research institute in Kabul emphasized that “almost all marriages in Afghanistan are arranged marriages (…), and that the culture in Afghanistan is such that it is almost impossible to have relations outside or before marriage. The family 18 19 20 21 22 23 6 When interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service on 7 June 2012, F.M. stated that they had had sexual intercourse for the first time at their fourth rendezvous. However, before the Refugee Appeals Board, on 22 October 2013, she stated that they had had sexual intercourse for the first time at their third rendezvous. Before the Immigration Service on 15 May 2012, F.M. declared that the two instances of sexual intercourse had been one month apart, whereas she stated on 7 June 2012 and on 22 October 2013 that they had been only one week apart. When interviewed by the Immigration Service on 4 February 2013, R.M. declared that they had had sexual intercourse for the first time at their second rendezvous. However, on 18 February 2013, he stated that they had had sexual intercourse for the first time at their fourth rendezvous, a statement he changed during the interview, saying that it had been at their third rendezvous. Before the Refugee Appeals Board on 22 October 2013, R.M. declared that F.M. had telephoned him to tell him she was pregnant, whereas he stated on 18 February 2013 that she had told him on the street, in front of her home. On 4 February 2013, R.M. declared that, after having had sexual intercourse for the first time, the authors had met another two or three times at F.M.’s home. On 18 February 2013, he first stated that they had remained in close contact after having had sexual intercourse for the first time and that they had seen each other when they had the time. R.M. changed that statement later at the same interview saying that, after having had sexual intercourse for the second time, they had only spoken on the telephone as they had both been scared. He maintained that statement at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board. By contrast, F.M. stated on 7 June 2012 that they had seen each other three or four times at the home of her paternal aunt (father’s sister) after having had sexual intercourse for the second time. However, she changed that statement at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, saying that they had kept a low profile and had only spoken over the telephone after the second time. On 18 February 2013, R.M. declared that they had fled four months after their first rendezvous, whereas F.M. declared on 15 May 2012 that she had been told that she had been promised to another man one month before their flight, and that the authors had had a relationship for four months by then. On 4 February 2013, R.M. declared that two weeks had elapsed between F.M.’s engagement and their flight. R.M. explained on 4 February 2013 that F.M.’s cousin and two or three other people had assaulted his brother, who had been stabbed with a knife by either F.M.’s cousin or one of the cousin’s friends. However, on 18 February 2013, R.M. declared that his family had been contacted by four or five people altogether, including F.M.’s uncle and cousin. Before the Refugee Appeals Board, on 22 October 2013, R.M. stated that his brother had been stabbed with a knife by F.M.’s cousin and two of his friends. It further appears from the document produced by R.M. that his brother was killed on 12 July 2011. R.M. declared that the authors left Afghanistan in the spring of 2010. If the killing of R.M.���s brother was related to the authors’ premarital relationship and their escape, it seems peculiar that it took more than one year after their flight before his brother was killed. On 18 February 2013, R.M. declared that F.M.’s cousin had told F.M.’s uncle when he saw the authors together. However, R.M. changed that statement, saying that F.M.’s cousin had told her uncle only after the authors had fled. By contrast, F.M. has stated that her cousin saw them talk to each other twice.