CCPR/C/117/D/2415/2014 4.12 The State party submits that, for the purpose of assessing the evidence, under section 40 of the Aliens Act the asylum seeker is required to provide such information as is necessary for deciding whether section 7 of the Act applies to him or her. It is thus incumbent upon an asylum seeker to substantiate that the conditions for granting of asylum are met. If the asylum seeker’s statements appear coherent and consistent, the Refugee Appeals Board will normally accept them as facts. However, inconsistent statements by the asylum seeker about crucial parts of his grounds for seeking asylum may weaken his credibility. 4.13 Regarding the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication, and there are no substantial grounds for believing that, if returned to Pakistan, the author would be in danger of being deprived of his life or being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The State party submits that this part of the communication is manifestly ill-founded and should be considered inadmissible. 4.14 Regarding the author’s claim under article 14, the State party refers to the Committee’s Views, under which proceedings related to the expulsion of an alien do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit of law” within the meaning of article 14 (1) but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant 6 and submits that this part of the communication should therefore be considered inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Protocol. 4.15 Regarding the author’s claim under article 18, arguing that a decision to deport him to Pakistan “is against a right to political freedom”, the State party notes that, under article 18, everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and submits that the author has failed to provide any details of how the State party has or would have any responsibility in that connection. The State party submits that this part of the communication should be considered manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, since the author has failed to establish a prima facie case under article 18 of the Covenant and has not sufficiently substantiated that there are substantial grounds for believing that his rights will be violated by his return to Pakistan. 4.16 The State party further observes that the author does not claim his rights under article 18 were violated while in the State party’s territory or in an area under its effective control or due to the conduct of the State party authorities, and in his communication the author is seeking to apply the obligations under article 18 of the Covenant in an extraterritorial manner. The State party submits that the Committee lacks jurisdiction over the relevant violation with respect to the State party and this part of the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The State party submits that it cannot be held responsible for violations of article 18 expected to be committed by another State party outside the territory and jurisdiction of the State party. The State party considers that extraditing, expelling or otherwise removing a person in fear of having his rights under article 18 violated by another State party will not cause such irreparable harm as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and submits that this part of the communication should also be rejected as inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae pursuant to rules 96 (a) and (d) of the Committee’s rules of procedure and article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6 6 See communications No. 2007/2010, in J.J.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 8.5, and No. 2186/2012, Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 6.3.