CCPR/C/130/D/2671/2015 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 10 August 2016, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 With regard to his claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the author reiterates his previous arguments and underlines that the domestic authorities have failed to explain why they consider that he, as a former employee of the Afghan Government, would not face the risk of persecution if he were deported to Afghanistan, especially in the light of the fact that he is from an area that is, to a large extent, still controlled by the Taliban. 5.3 Regarding his claim under article 13 of the Covenant, the author submits that during the first two interviews conducted by the Danish Immigration Service, the Iranian interpreter was speaking Farsi and not Dari. He raised this problem during the second interview, but the interpreter did not translate his concern and the interview continued in Farsi. As concerns the interview before the Refugee Appeals Board, he notes that the interpreter was from Afghanistan but he was speaking Pashto and not Dari. It was not until he received the decision of the Board that he understood the nature of the credibility assessment. As there was no possibility for him to appeal this decision to the Danish courts, he requested the reopening of the proceedings. The decision of the Board of 8 February 2016 proves that the domestic authorities failed to recognize his concerns in connection with the interpretation, which has clearly violated his rights under article 13 of the Covenant. The author further submits that at the hearing before the Board, it was not only the representative of the Danish Immigration Service but also the members of the Board who kept asking him questions, which created the impression that the members were not impartial. 5.4 In the light of these arguments, the author requests the Committee to uphold its request for interim measures. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 9 August 2017, the State party submitted its additional observations on admissibility and the merits, reiterating that the author’s claims had not been substantiated. 6.2 The State party upholds its observations of 6 May 2016 and recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether there is a real risk of irreparable harm to a person if removed from their territory, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 8 The State party adds that the author has not explained his view that the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board is contrary to this standard. 6.3 The State party notes that although the UNHCR background material cited by the author indeed refer to persons who have collaborated with international forces as individuals belonging to a potential risk group, this reference cannot independently justify the granting of residence to the author under section 7 of the Aliens Act, nor can other general background information on the security situation in Afghanistan. The State party continues to argue that the decisive factor is whether, as determined through an assessment of the information in the case at hand in conjunction with the current background information on Afghanistan, the author would be at a specific and individual risk of persecution if returned to Afghanistan. 6.4 Regarding the author’s claim that he was asked questions by members of the Refugee Appeals Board, the State party notes that it is standard procedure for Board members to ask the asylum seeker questions during the oral hearing, especially if the asylum seeker’s statements require further clarification on points that were not addressed by the representatives of the parties. 6.5 Accordingly, the State party maintains that the complaint should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee examine the complaint on the merits, the State party is of the view that there has been no violation of the author’s rights under article 13 of the 8 A.S.M. and R.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014), paras. 8.3 and 8.6. 5