CCPR/C/116/D/2422/2014 factual circumstances of his asylum claim reassessed by the Committee. The Committee must give considerable weight to the factual findings of the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed than the Committee to assess the factual circumstances in the author’s case. The Board found that the author’s allegations 12 were not credible. In addition, the author made several additional uncertain and inconsistent statements during domestic proceedings. First, during the hearing before the Board, the author was asked why his mother had made her children take their birth certificates to the orphanage when she knew that they would face problems as a result, since they were half Azerbaijani. The author responded that a birth certificate was required to live at the orphanage. Second, it was only at the Board hearing that the author introduced his claims regarding the competitions in which he and V had been forced to participate at the military barracks. 4.5 Third, concerning the attempted rape of V, the author stated in his asylum application that he and V had gone to the stables one night after work to sleep. The author claimed that a few men entered and beat the author and that, when one of the men tried to rape V, the author managed to break free and hit one of the men on the mouth. However, when interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service, the author stated that he and his brother had been taken back to the barracks and detained in a room in which the author was restrained by two soldiers, while two other soldiers attempted to rape V. Then, at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, the author stated that five drunk soldiers had entered the place where he and V were sleeping. The five soldiers tried to rape V. The author hit the soldier who had restrained V. Suddenly, the door opened, and the five soldiers escaped after being warned that someone was coming. 4.6 Fourth, regarding the digging of trenches, when interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service, the author stated that he had had to dig trenches in the evening. When told that it seemed strange that the trenches were being dug at night, the author stated that they were often ordered to dig in the middle of the night. However, at the Refugee Appeals Board hearing, the author stated that he had dug trenches from 7 a.m. until midnight. Fifth, the author was only able to give very limited information about H and A at the Board hearing, even though, according to the information the author provided, H had assisted him in escaping first to Azerbaijan and later to Belarus. Sixth, the Board considered that the author’s claims regarding his two-year stay in Azerbaijan and a stay of more than three years in Belarus were completely unsubstantiated. On the basis of the aforementioned issues, the Board did not accept as fact any part of the author’s statements concerning his reasons for seeking asylum. 4.7 The State party considers that the Committee, in its jurisprudence on evaluating a risk of treatment contrary to the provisions of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, has focused on whether the author has identified an irregularity in the decision-making process, or a risk factor that the State party’s authorities have failed to take properly into account.13 In the instant case, the author has failed to identify such an issue. Because there are no grounds for doubting the Refugee Appeals Board decision, which was made through a comprehensive quasi-judicial process in which the author had the opportunity to present his views, both in writing and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel, the author’s claim 12 13 8 See paras. 2.10 to 2.16 above. The State party cites communication No. 2186/2012, Mr. X. and Ms. X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5.