CCPR/C/118/D/2115/2011 errors, unlawful exercise of discretion and disqualification of Board members. The author has not brought any such proceedings concerning legal issues before the Danish courts. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, in which it has stated that authors of communications must exhaust all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author. 6 The Committee notes that the author unsuccessfully appealed the negative asylum decision before the Refugee Appeals Board and that the State party does not challenge the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author. The Committee, therefore, considers that it is not prevented from considering the present communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 9.4 As to the author’s claim under article 2 of the Covenant in relation to the expulsion decision, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, which indicates that the provisions of article 2 of the Convention, which lay down general obligations for State parties, cannot, when invoked in and of themselves, give rise to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol. 7 The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claims in that regard are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.5 The Committee notes the author’s claims that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are the only decisions that are final without possibility of appeal before the national courts; that he had limited time to prepare his application and submit evidence; that the Board lacks impartiality and independence, since one member is an employee of the Ministry of Justice; that during the Board hearings, Board members posed questions to him in a hostile manner; and that the State party has thus violated his rights under articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant. In that regard, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence, in which it has stated that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1), but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 8 Article 13 of the Covenant offers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal. 9 The 6 7 8 9 8 See communications No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 7.4; and No. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5. See communications No. 2202/2012, Castañeda v. Mexico, Views adopted on 18 July 2013, para. 6.8; No. 1834/2008, A.P. v. Ukraine, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 23 July 2012, para. 8.5; and No. 1887/2009, Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 19 October 2010, para. 9.4. See, communications No. 2288/2013, Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark, Views adopted on 23 July 2015, para. 6.4; X and X v. Denmark, para. 6.3; No. 1494/2006, Chadzjian et al. v. Netherlands, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 2008, para. 8.4; and No. 1234/2003, P.K. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 20 March 2007, paras. 7.4 and 7.5. See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62.