CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014 2.5 In addition, the author’s counsel stated that the author produced several original documents, certificates and photographs in support of his asylum claim and that the Board infringed the author’s human rights by rejecting his statements about conflict in his country of origin without seeking detailed information about the validity of the evidence produced. 2.6 On 30 June 2014, the author’s counsel indicated that, during the three and a half months that had elapsed since the protection measures had been requested, the Board had not complied with the Committee’s request that the Danish authorities in Kabul contact the author and enquire about his safety. Counsel added that the author was not staying with his family but rather moving from place to place to avoid persecution. In the light of information subsequently provided by counsel on 1 July 2014, the Committee reiterated its request for protection measures in the author’s case. 2.7 On 22 July 2014, the author’s counsel indicated that the author had stated in an email that the Ministry of Interior Affairs had enquired with the elders of his village about the work and family problems of the author. In the same e-mail, the author, in order to demonstrate the prevailing threats to his security, alleged that his son had been killed, although initially in his communication to the Committee of 17 March 2014 he had claimed that his brother had been killed. 2.8 On 29 August 2014, the author reiterated that he was in danger in Afghanistan and that he had not yet been properly protected, adding that the Danish embassy in Kabul, as well as the International Organization for Migration, had repeatedly been seized of the author’s needs for protection. He claimed that the State party had not provided any information regarding the eventual measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s request for measures of protection aimed at ensuring the author’s safety. On 2 September 2014, the author indicated that he had shown his bodily injuries to the staff of the Danish embassy in Kabul to demonstrate a threat he reportedly faced and the absence of response to the Committee’s request for protection. On 10 September 2014, the author further indicated that he had received no response at all from the State party’s authorities after his meeting in the Danish embassy in Kabul. 2.9 The author maintains that, as no judicial review of the Board decision is available, all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the communication is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The author argues that, by forcibly returning him to Afghanistan, the State party violated his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.2 He also claims a violation of article 14 of the Covenant “or equivalent” in connection with the hearing of the author’s asylum case by the migration authorities and his subsequent return to Afghanistan. He maintains that in Afghanistan he is at “great risk of being exposed to serious harm and abuse, even death” and insists that the risk stems from his former work fighting drugrelated crime and his cooperation with several English-speaking agencies in that capacity. The author explains that, as a result of this work, he is a member of several risk groups, including “individuals associated with, or perceived as supportive of, the Government and the international community” and “individuals perceived as contravening the Taliban’s interpretation of Islamic principles, norms and values”.3 He argues that, because he speaks fluent English and “returns from the West”, he faces greater risk. 2 3 4 At the time the initial communication was submitted, the author had not yet been deported. The author cites the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan of 6 August 2013, sects. III.A.1 and III.A.6.