CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015 standard, whereas the correct standard is the one of “reasonably possible”, as used in the relevant international guidance by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).25 5.3 As to the admissibility of the authors’ communication, there is a personal and real risk of harm that arises from both an individualized assessment of the authors’ situation and of relevant background information. The authors have consistently expressed their fear of extremely grave harm at the hands of F.M.’s family or the Afghan authorities, and background information supports the very serious consequences of the authors’ sexual relationship and flight. Thus, irreparable harm to the authors is a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their deportation to Afghanistan. 5.4 On the merits, the State party points to a number of minor inconsistencies that do not depart from the core of the authors’ asylum claim. Relevant international jurisprudence supports a finding of credibility notwithstanding minor inconsistencies in the asylum seeker’s account. In E.U.R. v. Denmark, the Committee found a violation of article 7, considering, inter alia, that the inconsistencies in the dates themselves were insufficient to vitiate the whole credibility of the claim and that the inconsistencies were not central to the general claim made by the author.26 In that case, like the case of R.M., the author was also not familiar with the Gregorian calendar. F.M. is illiterate and has never received any schooling. 5.5 The European Court of Human Rights also highlighted in A.A. v. France that slight chronological differences did not amount to a significant discrepancy affecting general credibility. 27 The present communication is analogous to that case, given the slight chronological differences between the authors’ accounts. In R.C. v. Sweden, the Court held that, contrary to the opinion of the Swedish authorities, the basic story of the applicant was consistent and credible, although there were some uncertainties about the credibility of his escape.28 Such jurisprudence supports the finding that the authors’ central asylum claim is, in fact, credible. 5.6 Any inconsistencies in the authors’ accounts should be understood in the context of the entire claim and with regard to their individual circumstances. In the Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, UNHCR points out that “the applicant’s statements cannot (…) be considered in the abstract, and must be viewed in the context of the relevant background situation.”29 The background situation includes a broad range of subjects, including the personal background of the applicant, his or her age, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity, education, social status, religion, and cultural background.30 At the material time, F.M. was an illiterate 16 year-old orphan, raised by her uncle; she never attended school in any form and rarely left the house. R.M. attended school for eight years, but lacks a mathematical understanding of time and was not familiar with the Gregorian calendar at the time of his asylum application. Their inconsistencies are quite natural for an asylum seeker in their situation. 5.7 The inconsistencies in the authors’ statements should also be considered in the light of the three-year period between the events and the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board. According to UNHCR, applicants might not be able to remember all factual details or to recount them accurately or may confuse them because of the time lapse or the intensity of the events, The inability to remember or provide all dates or minor details, or minor inconsistencies, insubstantial vagueness or incorrect statements that are not material in their statements may be taken into account in the final assessment on credibility, but should not be used as decisive factors.31 The authors’ inconsistencies are not central to the core of their 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 See UNHCR, Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims, 16 December 1998, paras. 11 and 17; and UNHCR, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, December 2011. E.U.R. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014), paras. 9.7–9.9. A.A. v. France, application No. 18039/11, 15 January 2015. R.C. v. Sweden, application No. 41827/07, 9 March 2010. UNHCR, Handbook and Guidelines, para. 42. UNHCR, Beyond Proof: Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems, May 2013, p. 36. UNHCR, Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims, para. 9. 9