CCPR/C/116/D/2422/2014 under article 7 is manifestly ill founded. For the same reasons, the State party considers that this claim is wholly without merit.14 4.8 The State party further considers that the author’s claim under article 26 is inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae under rule 96 (a) and (d) of the Committee’s rules of procedure and article 2 of the Optional Protocol, because article 26 does not have extraterritorial application. The author’s allegations of a violation of article 26 do not rest on any treatment that he has suffered in Denmark or in an area where Danish authorities are in effective control, or due to the conduct of Danish authorities, but rather on consequences that he will allegedly suffer when returned to Armenia. States parties cannot be held responsible for violations of this provision occurring on territory outside of their jurisdiction and perpetrated by other States. The State party asserts that the European Court of Human Rights has clearly stressed in its jurisprudence the exceptional character of extraterritorial protection of rights contained in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). Indeed, the Court has observed that “on a purely pragmatic basis, it cannot be required that an expelling contracting State only return an alien to a country which is in full and effective enforcement of all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention”.15 The State party also refers to the Court’s judgment in Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 27034/05), in which it stated that extraterritorial effect should be applied primarily to violations of articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and to articles 5 and 6 of the same Convention, if the person expelled would be at risk of a flagrant violation of his or her rights in the receiving State. The State party considers that a violation of article 26 by another State party will not cause such irreparable harm as contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and that article 26 should therefore not have extraterritorial application. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments dated 12 March 2015, the author questions the integrity of the asylum process in Denmark, and states that there is no right to appeal the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board to an ordinary Danish court. The author asserts that the Board lacks many of the attributes of a real court, as evidenced by the following aspects of its operation: (a) board hearings are never open to the public or to persons whom the applicant might wish to be present; (b) witnesses are generally not allowed at Board hearings; (c) there is no educational requirement for the interpreters used by the Board; and (d) one member of the five-member Board is appointed by the Ministry of Justice and is usually an employee of the Ministry, which can easily create a conflict of interest because the Ministry is the superior administrative authority to the Danish Immigration Service, which renders the first administrative decision in asylum cases. 5.2 With regard to the State party’s observations on the merits, the author asserts that, although the State party repeatedly refers to the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board, it should be noted that it was a “majority of the Refugee Appeals Board” who found that the author’s application should be rejected. 5.3 The author further maintains that his account of the relevant facts was consistent, detailed and credible throughout the asylum proceedings. The author refers to his complaint and reiterates his objections concerning the alleged inconsistencies or implausibilities 14 15 Before the Danish authorities, the author does not appear to have alleged that he would be imprisoned for military desertion if returned to Armenia. Before the Danish Immigration Service, he argued that he would be imprisoned for treason, for assisting H and A, who were spies from Azerbaijan. See F v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, application no. 17341/03, judgment dated 22 June 2004, para. 3. 9