CCPR/C/121/D/2643/2015 6.6 According to the general principles of public administration, the Board must, on its own initiative, reopen cases of refused asylum seekers who are about to be returned if essentially new information has come to light that affects the basis on which the Board made its previous decision. It may be necessary to obtain additional information before the Board can decide on the issue of reopening. This is fully in accordance with the Board’s usual practice and is consistent with the two-instance principle. 6.7 The State party observes that the author’s asylum application was examined by the Danish Immigration Service at first instance and heard by the Board at second instance. Moreover, the Board considered on three separate occasions whether to reopen the author’s asylum case following a thorough assessment of the information on the alleged affiliation of the author and her brother with LTTE, which was submitted in connection with the request to reopen the case. The Board found that this new information on the affiliation of the author and her family with LTTE could not be accepted as fact, considering in particular the information provided by the author to the Swiss authorities on two previous occasions. 6.8 Furthermore, the State party submits that the Board carefully assesses the information provided and the submissions made in all communications lodged before the Committee. In such cases, the Chairman of the panel that initially heard the case determines whether the communication provides a basis for reopening the asylum case and, if so, gives the detailed reasons for the reopening. The Board therefore always makes an assessment of the merits of a communication lodged with the Committee. In the case at hand, the State party submits that there is no basis for the author’s allegation that the Board is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body. 6.9 The State party therefore considers that the author’s rights under article 13 of the Covenant, in itself or read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, were not violated in connection with the consideration of the author’s asylum case by the Danish authorities. The State party reiterates that the author attempted to obtain residence in Denmark by deliberately providing incorrect information about current persecution in Sri Lanka, despite having stayed in Switzerland for several years before doing so. This situation was revealed when the author requested the reopening of her asylum case. The author then relied on different grounds for seeking asylum, which, as mentioned above, the Board could not accept as facts. In the State party’s view, the author has thus deliberately abused the asylum system, and this abuse has been aggravated by her attempt to prolong her unwarranted stay in Denmark by lodging a communication with the Committee. 6.10 Accordingly, the State party kindly requests the Committee to review its request for interim measures and to examine this case at its upcoming session. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. It also observes that the author filed an application for asylum, which was lastly rejected by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board on 22 June 2015. Since the decisions of the Board cannot be appealed, no further remedies are available to the author. Accordingly, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.4 Concerning the author’s claim under article 13, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims are insufficiently substantiated, as this provision 11