CCPR/C/121/D/2643/2015 of the Covenant does not confer the right to appeal27 or the right to a court hearing. 28 In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that the author’s asylum case was heard at two instances, including the Board as an independent and quasi-judicial body, which is considered as a court or tribunal. The Committee observes that the Board considered on three separate occasions whether to reopen the author’s asylum case and decided that it was objective and reasonable not to accept the changing grounds for seeking asylum as facts, without resorting to an oral hearing. In view thereof, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate for purposes of admissibility that the above-mentioned proceedings amounted to a denial of justice in her case, in violation of article 13 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant that, if she were removed to Sri Lanka, she would be at risk of being detained, beaten, raped or tortured by the Sri Lankan Army. It also notes the author’s argument that she fears her violent former husband, who has threatened to kill her if she returns to Sri Lanka, asserting that she cannot seek adequate protection from the Sri Lankan authorities in that regard. The Committee also takes note of the State party���s argument that the author’s claims under article 7 in regard to her perceived LTTE affiliation are unsubstantiated, that her fears of her former husband do not meet the threshold of a risk of persecution, and that the author has not rendered it probable that she would be unable to obtain protection from the Sri Lankan authorities. However, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the author has provided sufficient substantiation regarding those claims. 7.6 The Committee declares the communication admissible, insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes that the author claims that the State party would violate its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant by forcibly removing her and her minor children to Sri Lanka. In that regard, the Committee notes the author’s fears that she would be detained by the authorities due to her and her family’s alleged affiliation with LTTE. In particular, she is afraid that she will be detained, beaten, raped and tortured by the Sri Lankan Army and that she will end up dead or permanently disabled like her brother. The Committee further notes the author’s fear of her violent former husband, who has threatened to find and kill her if she returns to Sri Lanka. In this regard, the Committee notes the author’s claim that, in this context, she cannot be expected to seek protection from the Sri Lankan authorities, as she would face even more exposure and ill-treatment from them. Moreover, the Committee notes the author’s claim that failed asylum seekers of Tamil ethnicity returning to Sri Lanka who are actually affiliated with or assumed to be affiliated with LTTE are at risk of being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including sexual violence. In that regard, the author claims that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board has not, in any of its decisions, considered the risk of ill-treatment she would face in the event of her return to Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seeker. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims with respect to article 7 of the Covenant should be considered as manifestly unfounded because the author has not sufficiently established that she would face a real and personal risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party emphasizes that the Board considered four different sets of the author’s grounds for asylum: (a) fear of being persecuted due to her former husband’s affiliation with LTTE — a ground that the author later withdrew, admitting that it had been fabricated for the occasion; (b) fear that her life would be in danger in the event of her 27 28 12 See e.g. Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, para. 6.3. See e.g. Maroufidou v. Sweden, para. 10.1.