CCPR/C/130/D/2946/2017 4.6 The State party notes that, in practice, the Refugee Appeals Board assigns counsel free of charge in all cases and forwards to counsel the case file well before the hearing. In practice, before a hearing, asylum seekers always meet with their counsel, who submit briefs in the vast majority of cases. Proceedings before the Board are attended by the asylum seeker, his or her counsel, an interpreter and a Danish Immigration Service representative. The asylum seeker makes a statement and may produce additional evidence. Questions are posed to the asylum seeker, following which counsel and the Danish Immigration Service representative can make oral arguments. The asylum seeker may make a final statement. The Board normally renders its decision immediately after the hearing. Decisions are based on individual and specific assessments made in the light of all relevant evidence, including information on the asylum seeker’s country of origin. 4.7 The State party observes that asylum seekers are told that it is their duty to provide detailed information and about the importance of doing so. The Refugee Appeals Board bases its assessment on an overall appreciation of the asylum seeker’s statements and demeanour during the hearing, as well as on other information, including on the country of origin. The Board has a comprehensive collection of such information and continually updates it based on a variety of sources. It normally accepts the asylum seeker’s statements as fact if they are coherent and consistent, and seeks clarifications of inconsistencies, changing statements, expansions or omissions. Inconsistent statements about crucial elements may weaken an asylum seeker’s credibility; in such cases, the Board will consider, inter alia, the asylum seeker’s explanations as well as his or her situation, including cultural differences, age and health. In certain situations, greater emphasis may need to be placed on objective circumstances due to the asylum seeker’s age or mental health status. 4.8 The State party observes that the communication submitted by the author provides no basis for setting aside the assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board. The State party argues that the author has not established that his removal to Afghanistan would constitute a breach of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The State party refers to the high threshold set by the Committee for providing substantial grounds for establishing that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.5 The State party also refers to the standard of the Committee’s review according to which considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and it is generally for the States parties’ organs to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it is found that such evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.6 The State party asserts that, in the present case, the author has not met this standard, as, beyond voicing his disagreement with the assessment made, he has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors not properly considered. The State party submits that the author attempts to use the Committee as an appellate body to have his case reassessed, even though it was already assessed at two instances in Denmark and he had the opportunity to present his views orally and in writing with the assistance of legal counsel, resulting in a comprehensive and thorough assessment by the Refugee Appeals Board. 4.9 The State party observes that the communication contains no new information on the author’s situation in Afghanistan. It notes that the general situation in Afghanistan is not such as to justify granting asylum.7 With reference to the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board, the State party observes that the author has not rendered probable a specific and individual 5 6 7 4 A.A.I. and A.H.A. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014), para. 6.5; and X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2. A.S.M. and R.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014), paras. 8.3 and 8.6; P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.2; N v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014), para. 6.6; K v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), paras. 7.4–7.5; Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 7.5; and Z v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014), para. 7.4. The State party refers to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan, 30 August 2018 (document HCR/EG/AFG/18/02); and M.A. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2240/2013), para. 7.7. See also the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in A.G.R. v. the Netherlands (application No. 13442/08), para. 59; M.R.A. and Others v. the Netherlands (application No. 46856/07), para. 112; S.S. v. the Netherlands (application No. 39575/06), para. 66; and A.W.Q. and D.H. v. the Netherlands (application No. 25077/06), para. 71.