CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015 State party to continuously assess the risk that any person would face in case of return to another country before the State takes any final action regarding his or her deportation or removal. 7.10 Without prejudice to the continuing responsibility of the State party to take into account the present situation of the country to which the author would be deported, and in the light of the available information regarding the author’s personal circumstances, the Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant have been insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.11 The Committee further notes the author’s claims under article 26 of the Covenant that the Board’s decision and its procedure constitute a discrimination against asylum seekers, since all other decisions by administrative bodies can be appealed before courts pursuant to the State party’s laws. It also notes the State party’s statement that the author has been treated in the same way as any other person applying for asylum before its authorities, whatever their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The Committee observes that the author has not provided any further arguments on this part of the complaint. It therefore considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 26 and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.42 7.12 The Committee further notes the author’s claims that the impossibility for him to appeal the Board’s decision of 28 April 2015 amounts to a violation of his right to a fair trial under article 13 of the Covenant, as the decisions of the Board are the only administrative decisions that cannot be appealed before the national courts. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, referred to by the State party, according to which article 13 of the Covenant offers to asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but excludes the right of appeal to judicial courts. 43 The Committee therefore concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 13, and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; (b) 42 43 That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional That the decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. See, for example, communication No. 2115/2011, I.A.K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 3 November 2016, para. 9.7. See communication No. 2288/2013, Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark, Views adopted on 23 July 2015, para.6.4, and general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62. 11