CCPR/C/121/D/2643/2015 the first oral hearing. In its decision of 22 June 2015, the Board nonetheless stated that no new relevant information had been provided by the author. 5.6 The author considers that the State party is attempting to use the Committee as an ordinary appeals body to reach a decision based on its new assessment of the author’s credibility. She submits that this should have been done by the Board in an oral hearing in accordance with article 13 of the Covenant, prior to the passing of the decisions of 10 January 2014 and 22 June 2015. 5.7 The author requests the Committee to assess whether there has been a violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 13, of the Covenant, given the factual circumstances of her case at the time when the Board reached its decisions on 10 January 2014 and 22 June 2015. The author submits that the Board’s decisions of 10 January 2014 and 22 June 2015 were manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary in nature, as she was denied a thorough oral hearing on the new statements about her and her brother’s affiliation with LTTE. 5.8 The author reiterates that her affiliation with LTTE would give rise to persecution if the author and her children were to be forcibly returned to Sri Lanka. Accordingly, the author requests the Committee not to lift the interim measures. Additional submission from the State party 6.1 On 17 January 2017, the State party submitted additional observations. It argues that the author’s additional observations of 23 June 2016 do not provide any new and specific information on her original grounds for asylum. It therefore reiterates its observations of 17 March 2015. 6.2 Regarding the author’s claim that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board’s decisions dated 10 January 2014 and 22 June 2015 violated her rights under article 13 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, the State party argues that this part of the claim should also be considered inadmissible as manifestly ill founded. It asserts that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of this part of her communication under article 13 of the Covenant. Alternatively, it submits that the author did not substantiate that article 13 was violated. 6.3 Concerning the author’s submission relating to her right to an oral hearing, the State party observes that it follows from the Committee’s jurisprudence that article 13 of the Covenant does not confer the right to appeal25 or the right to a court hearing. 26 6.4 The State party further observes that, in all cases where the asylum seeker claims that essentially new information has come to light, the Board makes a specific and individual assessment of whether this new information may result in a different decision. 6.5 In this regard, the State party elaborates on the Board’s rules of procedure, whereby it may uphold its previous decision or decide to reopen a case. In particular, the Chairman of the panel that previously decided the case may decide that the panel is to determine whether to reopen the case at an oral hearing or through deliberations in writing. The panel then has to decide whether the case should be reopened and considered at a new hearing by the same panel that previously decided the case and with all parties to the case present, or whether it should be reopened and considered at a hearing by a new panel. Cases may be reopened for reconsideration at a new hearing before the panel that previously decided the case if the asylum seeker has provided essentially new information of significance to the decision on the case, and if it is determined that the asylum seeker should be given the opportunity to make a statement in person in this respect. 25 26 10 See e.g. Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, para. 6.3. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, e.g. communication No. 58/1979, Maroufidou v. Sweden, Views adopted on 9 April 1981, para. 10.1, arguing that the Committee did not dispute that a mere administrative “review” of the decision to expel the author from Sweden was not in violation of article 13 of the Covenant.