CCPR/C/117/D/2415/2014 4.17 The State party submits that should the Committee find the author’s application admissible and that he has not sufficiently established that his return to Pakistan would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The State party observes that no new information came to light through the communication and agrees with the assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board that the author’s statement of his grounds for asylum cannot be considered credible. The State party observes that the author’s activities with the Pakistan Peoples Party occurred far back in time and that the information provided about the inquiries made by the Pakistani intelligence service appears incoherent and unsubstantiated. The State party further observes that the fact that the author’s brothers were granted asylum in Denmark in the 1980s cannot lead to a different assessment of the author’s claim, as he was able to stay in Pakistan for many years without any problems arising from his own political conviction or his brothers’ activities. The State party agrees with the Refugee Appeals Board in considering that the general conditions in Pakistan cannot in themselves lead to the granting of residence to the author under section 7 of the Aliens Act. 4.18 The State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board, which is a collective body of quasi-judicial nature, made its decision of 12 December 2012 based on a procedure during which the author had the opportunity to present his views, both in writing and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel, and that the Board conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case. The State party notes that, by failing to provide any new, specific details about his situation, the author is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of his asylum request reassessed by the Committee. Finally, the State party submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5. On 15 September 2015, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s submission. The author maintains that, on the basis of the information presented in his communication to the Committee, his return to Pakistan would result in a violation of the rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The author reiterates that he is in danger of being deprived of his life, as mentioned in the initial communication, and notes the recent constitution of military courts in Pakistan and the lifting of the death penalty moratorium and that as a member of the Pakistan Peoples Party he is personally and directly affected by the policies and practices of Pakistan. In addition, the author clarifies that the reference to the right to political freedom was to invoke article 19 of the Covenant. The author claims that, on his return to Pakistan, he could most certainly expect to be victimized due to his political opinions or beliefs considering that the “culture of political victimization in Pakistan is ingrained in the social and political elite and that [it] is still very strong and well-rooted in the society”. State party’s additional observations 6. On 13 January 2016, the State party submitted that the information provided by the author on 15 September 2015 does not give rise to any further comments by the State party. Regarding the author’s new reference to article 19 of the Covenant, the State party submits that this part of the communication should also be considered inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae pursuant to rule 96 of the Committee’s rules of procedure and article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The State party thus maintains that the communication should be declared inadmissible but, if the Committee decides to consider it admissible, it maintains that the return of the author to Pakistan will not result in a violation of the provisions of the Covenant. 7