CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015 received residence permits.33 The author claims that this demonstrates that the Board often makes mistakes and indicates that the Board’s decision of 28 April 2015 was manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary.34 State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 19 August 2016, the State party provided further observations to the Committee. The State party reiterates that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, article 13 of the Covenant does not establish the right to appeal or the right to a court hearing. In addition, in accordance with domestic legislation, the author had the possibility of appealing the Immigration Service decision of 17 December 2014 to the Board. The Board’s decisions are final and not subject to judicial review. This has been confirmed by the Danish Supreme Court, which has, however, established that aliens can, by virtue of the Constitution, bring an appeal before the courts, which have the competence to adjudicate any matter concerning the limits of competence of a public authority. Nevertheless, such review by the courts is limited to points of law. 6.2 With respect to the author’s allegation that his rights under article 26 of the Covenant had been violated, the State party reiterates that he has not been treated differently from any other person applying for asylum and that, in his asylum proceedings, no distinction was made on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 6.3 In relation to the author’s argument that the current situation in Afghanistan is extremely dangerous, and that even the State party recommends that people should not travel there, the State party submits that the foreign travel advice issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark applies to Danish nationals and Danish interests and that the risk of terrorist attacks and abductions relates only to Danish nationals. In addition, it indicates that the Board keeps abreast of information on conditions in Afghanistan, including information on the general security situation. For this purpose, the Board searches for background material four times a year.35 6.4 In relation to the author’s allegation that the Board’s decision of 28 April 2015 took into account only information from 2012, the State party submits that the Board keeps abreast of the latest background information, as it conducts research four times a year. The State party refers to UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan, issued by UNHCR in 2016, according to which, in areas where anti-government elements exercise effective control, they are reported to use a variety of mechanisms to recruit fighters, including recruitment mechanisms based on coercive strategies. People who resist recruitment are reportedly at risk of being accused of being a government spy and being killed or punished. The State party reiterates its assertion that, as the author originates from Kabul, an area controlled by the Afghan Government, the Board’s assessment that the general situation in Afghanistan does not justify residence in Denmark under section 7 of the Danish Aliens Act still applies. 6.5 Furthermore, the State party refers to several decisions by the European Court of Human Rights on the general conditions in Afghanistan. For instance, it refers to A.W.Q. and D.H. v. the Netherlands (application No. 25077/06), judgment of 12 April 2016, para. 71, in which the Court stated that it did not find that the general situation in Afghanistan had reached such a level of violence that the simple return of a person there would give rise to a risk of ill-treatment.36 33 34 35 36 8 The author refers again to the following communications: A.E. v. Denmark, J.G. v. Denmark and Z.S. v. Denmark. See above. The author does not develop this argument. The State party provides a list of approximately 200 reports on Afghanistan by governments, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations which were taken into account by the Board. The State party also refers to A.G.R. v. the Netherlands (application No. 13442/08), judgment of 6 June 2016, para. 59; M.R.A. and others v. the Netherlands (application No. 46856/07), judgment of 12 April 2016, para. 112; S.S. v. the Netherlands (application No. 39575/06), judgment of 12 April 2016, para. 66.