CCPR/C/116/D/2422/2014 completely dark.2 The Board also found it unlikely that the conscripts had succeeded in fleeing an area guarded by 30 Armenian soldiers by striking a sentry with a shovel while they were being shot at, and that they had not been pursued. In response, the author asserts that only 15 soldiers were guarding the area around the trenches while the other 15 were sleeping in a house behind the trenches, and that the first 15 soldiers were guarding the Azerbaijani border and not the 4 people who were digging trenches in front of it. 2.11 The Refugee Appeals Board further found it implausible that the author, H and A had managed to flee to Azerbaijan across a bridge that was not guarded by Azerbaijani soldiers. The author responds that they were in fact pursued, since they were shot at and V was killed by a bullet from a soldier. The author further maintains that the soldiers probably did not chase them because they were not instructed to guard them but were only tasked with ensuring that no Azerbaijani soldiers crossed the border to the Armenian side. The author also claims that it was dark when they fled, and that they travelled along a riverside to an unguarded bridge.3 Finally, the author claims that the Board had no basis for claiming that the bridge was or should have been guarded. 2.12 The Board also found it implausible that H and A, approximately two hours after arriving at the border region village, had been able to procure a military truck. In response, the author maintains that this allegation is indeed plausible, because it is likely that soldiers would live or stay in a village near a border. He further claims that it was reasonable for him to not ask where H and A had procured the military truck because he was still shaken by his brother’s death. 2.13 The Board further considered it unlikely that the author would have stayed in a room in his mother’s house without leaving it, and that the author had then lived in Belarus with H’s uncle for three years. The author maintains that those claims are not implausible, and that in any case any implausibility in that regard would not be a sufficient ground for rejecting the author’s entire account. 2.14 The Board also found it implausible that the author had been able to keep his mother’s letter around his neck for several years, including during his time in the military. The author responds that he and V took turns keeping the letter hidden beneath their clothes, and claims that it was wrapped in tin foil and hung around their necks on a string. The author further maintains that he never claimed before the Danish authorities that he had undressed or had his belongings confiscated when he was conscripted, and that it is thus entirely plausible that he was able to keep the letter hidden. 2.15 The Board further considered it implausible that the author had been able to locate his mother using her letter without any difficulty. The author argues that his mother had expressly provided her address so that her sons could find her when they were older. He also claims that this address was only 180 km from the border where his military barracks were located. The author alleges that it is not unlikely that his mother lived at the same address for nine years. 2.16 Finally, the Board considered that the author had inaccurately answered questions regarding the way he and his brother had tended a horse stable at the barracks. In response, the author claims that he did not provide inaccurate responses concerning that or any other subject. The author asserts that he was often so detailed in his answers during his oral 2 3 4 According to the State party’s observations, the author also alleged before the Refugee Appeals Board that H and A were Azerbaijani spies being held hostage by the Armenian army. In his comments on the State party’s observations, the author states that H and A “worked as investigators for Azerbaijan”. The author attached an image of the bridge in question.