CCPR/C/118/D/2115/2011 Refugee Appeals Board, can be appealed before courts. 4 Moreover, since an asylum application is examined and decided by the Danish Immigration Service in a short period of time, it cannot be concluded that the Service carries out a thorough examination of the request. Thus, in practice, the Board is the first instance that closely examines the allegations submitted by an asylum seeker. 5.4 The author claims that he had only approximately two to three months to prepare for the Board hearing and that this reduced his ability to provide evidence or offer witnesses within the asylum proceedings, violating his right to fair procedure. He submits that the asylum application he submitted to the Danish authorities had included photographs of his car and his parents’ home after the bombing in December 2010, which were not taken into account in the Board’s assessment. Also, while the State party refers to the contents of the document issued by the Iraqi Nation Party, dated 10 May 2011, that confirmed the author’s membership, it has not stated whether it considers the document a forgery. The author thus argues that in its decision the Board was focused on the inconsistences of his oral and written statements and that it denied his asylum request without assessing adequately the documentary evidence he had submitted. He submits that his accounts were consistent regarding the core part of his allegations. 5.5 The author notes that although he was not subjected to torture in Iraq prior to his departure, he had been a victim of attacks by persons who allegedly belonged to a political group opposed to the Iraqi Nation Party; those attacks had put his life at risk in a context in which the Iraqi authorities could not provide him with protection. Additional information submitted by the State party and by the author 6. On 19 October 2012, the State party submitted additional information to the Committee and reiterated its previous observations. It maintained that the author’s return to Iraq would not constitute a violation of his rights under articles 2, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant 7. On 4 December 2012, the author reiterated his allegations that asylum seekers cannot have access to courts, since decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are final and cannot be appealed. He claims that during the Board hearings, the Board members posed a number of questions to him in a hostile manner that gave him the feeling that they were not impartial. 8.1 On 15 June 2015, the State party submitted additional information. It maintains that the author’s allegations of violations of articles 2, 6, 7, 13, and 26 of the Covenant are inadmissible as manifestly unsubstantiated. 8.2 The State party submits that the author’s allegations under article 14 of the Covenant are inadmissible ratione materiae.5 It further states that the Refugee Appeals Board is an independent, expert board of a quasi-judicial nature, that the Chairman of the Board is a judge, that the Board’s proceedings are oral, and that applicants who come before the Board are represented by counsel. 8.3 The Board’s decision cannot be appealed and therefore its assessment of evidence is not subject to review. Aliens may, however, by virtue of the Constitution of Denmark, bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, which have authority to adjudicate any matter concerning the limits to the competence of a public authority. As established by the Supreme Court, the ordinary courts’ review of the decisions of the Board is limited to a review of legal issues. Such issues include defects in the basis of the decision, procedural 4 5 The author refers to CERD/C/DEN/CO/17, para. 13. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence concerning communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 24 April 2014, para. 8.5. 7