CCPR/C/130/D/2671/2015 Covenant, and that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that returning the author to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 13 of the Covenant that he was unable to appeal the negative decision of the Refugee Appeals Board to a judicial body and that he felt that the Board was biased because the members themselves posed questions to him at the oral hearing. In that regard, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence, according to which article 13 offers asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant but not the right of appeal to judicial bodies. 9 The Committee also notes that the author has not explained why he considers that the mere fact that members of the Board asked him questions in connection with his case at the oral hearing should give the impression that they lacked impartiality. The Committee further notes the author’s claims regarding the alleged errors of interpretation during the asylum hearings, which may have affected due process guarantees in the proceedings. However, the Committee notes the State party’s assertions in this regard that the interviews conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 12 February 2015 and 29 June 2015 were conducted in Dari in the presence of a certified interpreter, that the author did not comment on the minutes of the interviews, except to request a small correction to his mother’s name, and that the author stated that he had understood everything and that there had been no problems with the interpretation. The author was therefore 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 has submitted that there appears not to have been any problems with the interpretation. The Committee therefore concludes, on the basis of the information before it, that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 13 of the Covenant, and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claims that he would face torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, if returned to his country of origin, owing to his former position at the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disability in Afghanistan. The Committee observes the author’s submission that prior to his departure from Afghanistan, he had received several telephone calls and two threatening letters from the Taliban telling him that unless he stopped working for the Government he would be killed. The Committee is mindful of the background information provided by the author on the potential risk profile of former government officials and civil servants. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that he was not provided adequate interpretation during the asylum hearings, which had a negative impact on his credibility assessment. 9 6 For example, X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 8.5; A and B v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2291/2013), para. 7.3; and D and E v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2293/2013), para. 6.8.