CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015 4.3 Regarding the admissibility of the communication, the State party indicates that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for admissibility purposes in respect of the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, as he has not substantiated his claim that he would face any risk or danger if deported to Afghanistan. The State party indicates that its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in sections 7 (1) and 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, according to which a residence permit will be issued to an alien if he or she risks the death penalty or risks being subjected to torture or ill-treatment in case of return to his or her country of origin. The State party therefore considers that it has complied with its international obligations. 4.4 Regarding the author’s allegations that the impossibility of his appealing the Board’s decision before a court amounts to a violation of article 13 of the Covenant, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, which states that article 13 offers some of the guarantees afforded by article 14 (1) of the Covenant, but not the right to appeal 19 or the right to a court hearing. 20 Therefore, the State party considers that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under article 13 of the Covenant and that this section of his communication should be declared inadmissible. As for the author’s allegations under article 26 of the Covenant, the State party refers to the author’s statement that the impossibility of appealing the Board’s decision violates his rights under article 26 because other persons in Denmark, other than asylum seekers, have the possibility of appealing the decisions of administrative bodies like the Board before a court. The State party concludes that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility under article 26 of the Covenant and considers that this claim should be declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation. 4.5 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish that his return to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of articles 6, 7, 13 and 26 of the Covenant. Regarding articles 6 and 7, the State party indicates that the author has not provided any new information to the Committee that has not already been reviewed by the Board. The State party recalls the author’s claim that he would be at risk of a breach of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant if returned to Afghanistan because he was kidnapped by the Taliban so that they could force him to become a suicide bomber and that, if he is returned there, the Taliban will find him and kill him, or subject him to torture or ill-treatment because he had escaped from them. In this regard, the State party points out that the author made several inconsistent statements during his asylum proceedings. Firstly, the State party refers to the inconsistencies in the author’s account of his escape from his place of detention through the window. 21 Secondly, it indicates that, while in his interview with the Immigration Service on 27 June 2014 and in the hearing before the Board he stated that he had been beaten by his captors, in the interview with the Immigration Service on 3 December 2014 he stated that he had not been beaten or kicked, and that he had merely been threatened with violence if he tried to escape. Thirdly, the author made inconsistent statements regarding the length of his journey to Parwan: in his interview with the Immigration Service on 27 June 2014, he affirmed that the journey had taken about one hour or two; then in the interview with the Immigration Service on 3 December 2014 he indicated that it took around 30 minutes; and in his hearing before the Board, he indicated that the drive with the kidnappers had taken around 20 minutes.22 4.6 In addition, the State party points out that, during the asylum proceedings, it was difficult for the author to estimate the timing of various incidents, including the length of time he had been kidnapped and the length of time he had stayed with his parents and grandparents, and the point at which his family had been asked by the Taliban about his whereabouts. The State party further indicates that many of the statements made by the 19 20 21 22 The State party refers to communication No. 2186/2012, X and X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 6.3. The State party refers to communication No. 58/1979, Maroufidou v. Sweden, Views adopted on 9 April 1981. In this case, the Committee did not dispute the assertion that a mere administrative review of a decision expelling an alien from Sweden did not amount to a violation of article 13 of the Covenant. See para. 2.2 above. See para. 2.1 above. 5