CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014 measures of protection. Following his deportation, he requested to be returned to Denmark for his own safety. 1.2 On 31 March 2014, when registering the communication, and pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, requested the State party to ensure that the author was protected during the period of consideration of the communication by the Committee and, in particular, to instruct its embassy in Kabul to contact the author and provide information on his situation. The Committee reiterated its request for interim protection on 1 July 2014. On 1 October 2014, the State party informed the Committee that its authorities were unable to provide protection of the author on Afghan territory, where Denmark does not have jurisdiction. The State party added, however, that it had complied with the Committee’s request to instruct its embassy in Kabul to contact the author and provide information on his situation, including through an interview of the author conducted by the Danish embassy in Kabul on 20 August 2014. On 19 December 2014, the Committee once again reiterated its request for interim protection. The facts as presented by the author 2.1 The author claimed, inter alia, that he was highly likely to be at risk of being subjected to abuse contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant upon return to Afghanistan, since the Danish Refugee Appeals Board considered as fact that the author had been employed in Afghanistan as an agent to fight drug-related crimes and, in that connection, had collaborated with several English-speaking organizations. The fact that he spoke English and was being returned to his country of origin from a Western country increased the risks to which he would be exposed in Afghanistan. The author maintained that he was at risk of abuse or of being killed upon return to his country of origin, and that his return thus represented a breach of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 2.2 The author worked for several organizations, including Pacific Architects and Engineers, which cooperated with the Narcotics International Unit, the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States of America and the Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan to investigate drug-related crime. He claimed that, due to his work in fighting drug-related crime, he was sought by the Taliban, who knew him because he had assisted in securing the arrest of two drug lords affiliated with the Taliban. Moreover, as a result of his work, he had been the victim of an abduction attempt and had received written threats, and his brother had been kidnapped and killed. The author also contended that he feared that the Afghan authorities believed that he was a supporter of Christianity because of the existence of a video recording in which he talked about Christianity and Islam. 2.3 The author stated that he would be persecuted by the Taliban because of his work, and maintained that he fell within several of the risk groups mentioned in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan of 6 August 2013. 2.4 The author further stated that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board had breached article 14 of the Covenant by not sending its refusal to reopen the asylum proceedings until 4.33 p.m. on 17 March 2014, a few hours before the planned return of the author around midnight on 18 March 2014. He thus claims that the late forwarding of the decision in fact prevented him from effectively submitting a communication to the Committee under the Optional Protocol. He notes that the Board had been advised of the return well in advance both by the case officer of the Danish Refugee Council and by the Danish National Police, and that the Board had been advised that the case would be brought before an international body if the request to reopen it was refused. 3