CCPR/C/130/D/2671/2015 been fabricated for the occasion. In this respect, the State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board takes into account a number of factors in determining whether it is necessary to verify the authenticity of documents. These factors include the nature and content of the documents, whether the verification of the documents could lead to a different assessment of evidence, the circumstances of the issuance of the documents, general background information in respect of the particular country and the overall credibility of the asylum seeker. Having considered all these factors, the Board eventually concluded that the circumstances of the present case did not necessitate further verification of the submitted documents. 4.5 The State party further notes that the author has not produced any new information in his complaint to the Committee and that all relevant background information was made available to and considered by the Refugee Appeals Board in its decision of 21 September 2015. After a thorough assessment of the relevant background information and the author’s individual circumstances, the Board concluded that the author was not at risk of persecution contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. In any event, the State party submits that the author’s reference to the general situation of forced returnees in Afghanistan could not lead to a different assessment of his case. 4.6 As regards the alleged violation of article 13 of the Covenant, the State party submits that that article partly guarantees the same procedural rights afforded by article 14 (1) of the Covenant, but that it does not, however, encompass the right to appeal or the right to a court hearing.7 Considering that the author did not elaborate any further on his claim under article 13, the State party is of the view that this claim has not been sufficiently substantiated. Insofar as the author refers to problems of interpretation, the State party notes that, in its decision of 8 February 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board duly considered the issue. The Board established that the interviews conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 12 February 2015 and 29 June 2015 had been conducted in Dari in the presence of a certified interpreter. The author did not comment on the minutes of these interviews, except to request a small correction to his mother’s name. He then stated that he had understood everything and that there had been no problems with the interpretation. The Board therefore observed that the author was unable to provide a reasonable explanation as to why he had not raised his concerns about interpretation any earlier in the proceedings despite having had the opportunity to do so. As concerns the hearing before the Board, the State party submits that there appears not to have been any problems with the interpretation. In the circumstances, the State party is of the view that there has been no violation of article 13 of the Covenant on account of alleged errors of interpretation. 4.7 Lastly, the State party submits that the author disagrees with the assessment of his specific circumstances and the background information considered by the Refugee Appeals Board. However, in his communication to the Committee, the author failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factor that the Board has failed to take properly into account. The State party also submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of fact made by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of a particular case. Hence, in the State party’s view, there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by the Board according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being deprived of his life or subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Afghanistan. 4.8 The State party informs the Committee that, following the Committee’s request for interim measures, the Refugee Appeals Board suspended the time limit for the author’s departure from Denmark until further notice. On the basis of the above, the State party requests the Committee to review its request for interim measures. 7 4 The State party refers to X and X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012) and Maroufidou v. Sweden, communication No. 58/1979.