CCPR/C/118/D/2115/2011 2.10 The author submits that he has exhausted all domestic remedies. Pursuant to section 56 (8) of the Aliens Act, asylum seekers are not allowed to appeal decisions of the Refugee Appeal Board to the Danish courts, which has been confirmed several times by the Supreme Court, and there is no other remedy available at the domestic level. The complaint 3.1 The author argues that his deportation to Iraq by the State party, in the context of the circumstances surrounding his situation in Iraq prior to his departure, would constitute a violation of his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 3.2 The Danish authorities did not assess adequately the risk he would be subject to if returned to Iraq. The author claims that he was never arrested or detained by the authorities; however, his life was threatened four times owing to his membership in the Iraqi Nation Party. He points out that the State party refused his claims only because his participation in the Party was limited to putting up posters for a few days, without taking into account that the Iraqi authorities had failed to provide him with protection by investigating the attacks and identifying the aggressors. The author claims that the Danish authorities failed to take into account the photographs that show how his parents’ house was damaged by the bomb of 4 December 2010 and the document issued by the Party indicating that he was a member of the Party. Furthermore, the State party’s refusal is contrary to the position expressed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in its briefing notes on forced return to Iraq.2 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 8 May 2012, the State party provided its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. It maintains that the communication should be declared inadmissible for non-substantiation. Should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the State party maintains that the author’s deportation to Iraq would not be contrary to the Covenant. 4.2 The State party maintains that during the asylum proceedings, the author gave various contradictory statements concerning his affiliation with the Iraqi Nation Party in March 2010. For instance, he stated in the asylum registration report that he had been a member of the Party for 10 days only. In the asylum application form, however, he stated that he had been a member of the Party from 1 to 7 March 2010. At the interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 18 March 2011, he stated that he had become a member of the Party on 2 March 2010. Confronted with his statements, the author had said that he could not remember whether he had filled out the Party’s application form on 1 or 2 March 2010. Following the submission of his application, he became a member of the Party. To the question of whether, following its submission, his application was to have been assessed by someone , the author had replied in the affirmative. He had not become a member of the Party immediately, but had merely been recorded as an applicant. To the question of why he had stated that he had been a member for 10 days when he had only been an applicant and when the period was in fact 1 to 7 March 2010, the author stated that during the last 3 of the 10 days he had referred to he had tried to contact the friend who had given him the application form; the friend was the second or third highest ranking member in the Party. Then he stated that he had not been active in the Party since 7 March 2010. At the hearing of the Refugee Appeals Board on 18 May 2011, the author stated that he had not resigned from the Party, and that if he were in Iraq, he would still appear to be a member of the Party. 2 4 The author refers to UNHCR, “UNHCR concerned at planned forced return from Sweden to Iraq”, briefing notes, 18 January 2011.