CCPR/C/119/D/2602/2015 3.2 Under article 6 of the Covenant, he claims that if forcibly removed, he would fear for his life, because of the family blood feud he was involved in before arriving in Denmark in January 2013. He was violently attacked on two occasions as a consequence of the blood feud and alleges that, as a male member of the H. family, he is at risk of being killed. The Albanian authorities are not in a position to provide him with effective protection. 3.3 The author submits that the right to freedom of movement will be violated because the family will be compelled to stay at home and live in isolation due to the fear of suffering the consequences of the blood feud. Furthermore, as all returning Albanian citizens who apply for asylum abroad, the family will be prohibited by law from leaving the country for five years, in violation of article 12 (2) of the Covenant. 3.4 Under article 17 of the Covenant, the author claims that the attempts at revenge will infringe the H. family’s right not to be subjected to interference with their privacy and home and that the Albanian police are unable to protect them effectively. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 29 October 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication and observed that the author had failed to substantiate his claim that he would be at risk of irreparable harm in Albania. For the same reason, the State party considers that the complaint under article 6 of the Covenant is inadmissible since it is manifestly ill-founded. The State party submits that the author’s remaining claims under articles 12 and 17 of the Covenant are inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae. 4.2 The State party recalls that the author’s wife and two children arrived in Denmark on 9 March 2013 and applied for asylum on the same day. On 11 November 2013, the Danish Immigration Service rejected their asylum application. On 11 June 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the appeal of the author and his family. On 25 February 2015, the Board refused to reopen the asylum proceedings in this case. 4.3 The State party refers to the Board’s decision of 11 June 2014, and notes that the Board accepted, to a certain degree, the fact that the author had been involved, without playing a central role, in conflicts involving four families in Albania, but it also noticed inconsistencies in his statements. The Board noted, for example, that the author had stated that his family had decided to leave the country after receiving a threat in December 2012, whereas his wife had stated that they had decided to leave the country in November 2012, after her passport had been issued. It also noted that the author had stated that his family had been responsible for the most recent killings in the conflicts, whereas his uncle on his father’s side had stated the opposite. Therefore, the Board had found that the author had not played a central role in the conflict and that the intensity of the conflict did not justify granting asylum. The Board emphasized that the author had not been contacted by the families involved in the blood feud nor had he been subjected to attacks or specific threats by them, including the 2004 and 2008 attacks, and that it was solely his assumption that he was being pursued by the other families. The author’s claim that potential perpetrators in the other families had reached the age of 20 and could take revenge on him would not change the Board’s conclusion that the author had not been a direct target of the attacks or threats. Assessing the intensity of the conflict, the Board emphasized that the most recent killings dated back to 1997 and 2002 and that the police had investigated them, and as a consequence several perpetrators had been convicted and served their sentences. The Board also noted that the author had stayed in Italy in 2004, without applying for asylum, whereas he took up residence in Albania until his departure in January 2013. As the conflict was of a private-law nature, the author and his family would have to seek protection from the Albanian authorities if they received specific threats or were subjected to specific attacks. According to the report of the Swedish Migration Agency of 14 June 2013 on blood feuds in Albania, the Albanian police and prosecution authorities had set up separate units handling conflicts relating to blood feuds and blood vengeance, and the Ministry of the Interior of Albania had prepared an action plan to combat blood feuds. It followed that the author and his family could seek help from the authorities and volunteers and take up residence in other parts of Albania. 4