CCPR/C/118/D/2115/2011 4.8 The State party maintains that the author is in fact trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his claim of asylum reassessed by the Committee. In this regard, the State party submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the findings of fact in the author’s case. 4.9 The State party submits that the Board included all relevant information in its decision of 18 May 2011, including the document produced to confirm the author’s membership in the Iraqi Nation Party. The omission of an explicit reference to a specific document in the reasoning of the Board’s decision does not mean that the document was not included in the basis of the examination of the case. The documents produced by the author were referred to at the Board’s hearing and were included in the deliberations. However, the Board did not accept the author’s statement about his reason for applying for asylum, as the statement seemed incoherent, expansive and not credible. As to the author’s reference to the recommendations of UNHCR, the State party maintains that those recommendations are an essential part of the background information when a specific and individual assessment of each case is made. 4.10 The State party maintains that, over all, it appears unlikely that the author, whose active membership in the Iraqi Nation Party lasted only seven days and consisted only in anonymously helping to put up election posters, would have been the target of such comprehensive retaliation from political opponents as described by him during the asylum proceedings. The State party relies on the assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board that it does not appear credible that the author, as a rank-and-file party member and in the light of his limited political activities, would have been persecuted to such a degree as stated by the author. 4.11 The State party points out that the author has also changed and added details to his statement on other points in connection with the proceedings before the Danish authorities. Neither in the asylum registration report nor in the asylum application form did the author state that he had sought the protection of the Iraqi authorities. By contrast, the author recounted in detail during the interview with the Danish Immigration Service and at the Refugee Appeals Board hearing how he had reported to the police both the assassination attempts and the threatening letter. As regards the author’s allegation that as a Shia Muslim and member of a Sunni Muslim party he was considered a traitor by other Shia Muslims, the State party submits that during the proceedings the author did not state at any time that he risked persecution due to his religious beliefs if he were to be returned to Iraq. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 11 July 2012, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations and reiterated his allegations of violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. At the time the author’s comments were submitted to the Committee, the author continued to remain on the State party’s territory. 5.2 The author argues that the State party also violated his rights under articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant, since the denial by the Refugee Appeals Board of his asylum request cannot be appealed before a court. He also argues that one of the three Board members is an employee of the Ministry of Justice. Although that member may act in an impartial and independent manner, the asylum seeker may perceive his actions otherwise. 5.3 The Board’s decision and its procedure constitute discrimination against asylum seekers, in violation of articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant. The author points out that, under the law of the State party, decisions by administrative bodies, except those taken by the 6