CCPR/C/119/D/2602/2015 article 6 of the Covenant is manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible. Should the Committee declare the author’s claim under article 6 admissible, the State party submits that it is unsubstantiated. 4.8 The State party relies on the assessment made by the Board on 11 June 2014 and 25 February 2015, in which the Board did not accept the author’s assessment of the extent and intensity of the conflict, that is the author did not play a central role in the conflict, he was neither contacted by the families nor subjected to attacks or specific threats. The most recent killings were committed in 1997 and 2002. The police investigated killings in connection with the conflict and perpetrators were convicted. After visiting Italy in 2004, the author did not apply for asylum but returned to Albania. The author’s fear of attacks in Albania is based on his own assumptions. The State party finds it inconsistent with the circumstances that the author did not apply for asylum in Italy. In addition, the author and his wife made inconsistent statements regarding the reason for their departure from Albania, which, according to the author, was a threat in December 2012, and, for his wife, the issuance of a passport in November 2012. These inconsistencies were not sufficiently explained, which had an impact on the author’s credibility. It has not been demonstrated that the attacks on the author in 2004 and 2008 and the attempted killing of his nephew in 2014 were connected to the author’s conflict. The author’s statement that the Albanian authorities would not be able to protect him from the blood feud contradicts the background material on Albania. 4 Granting asylum to the author’s cousin in France does not entail granting asylum to the author, which is subject to individual assessment by the Board. The Board had no obligation to verify the authenticity of supporting documents submitted by the author. The decision on whether to do so must be based on an overall assessment of, inter alia, the nature and contents of the documents in conjunction with consideration of whether such verification could lead to a different assessment of the evidence, the timing and circumstances of the submission, and the credibility of the asylum seeker’s statement in the light of the general background information available on the conditions in the country. The European Union legislation on subsidiary protection is not part of Danish law — owing to the country’s decision to opt out of such legislation — and its application falls outside the Committee’s competence as such. 4.9 The State party submits that by lodging the communication, the author and his family expressed disagreement with the Board’s assessment of their asylum claims. They failed, however, to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board had failed to take properly into account. In the circumstances, the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings made by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the case. In the light of the Board’s decisions, the State party reiterates the fact that the author has failed to substantiate the risk of persecution or abuse justifying asylum if returned to Albania. Therefore, the return of the author and his family to Albania would not constitute a breach of article 6 of the Covenant. 4.10 The State party submits that the author’s claims under articles 12 and 17 of the Covenant are inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae, to the extent that the author seeks the extraterritorial application of the obligations of Denmark under the Covenant. As Albania is outside the territory and jurisdiction of Denmark, the Committee lacks jurisdiction over the alleged violations with respect to Denmark. As stated in paragraph 12 of general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States parties to the Covenant, article 2 of the Covenant entails an obligation on a State party not to remove a person from its territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. 5 Removing a person in fear of having his rights under articles 12 and 17 of the Covenant violated by another State party will not cause such irreparable harm as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7. The State party observes that the author has not substantiated the claim that his family would be subjected 4 5 6 Reference is made to the report by the Swedish Migration Agency of 14 June 2013 on blood feuds in Albania and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, “Country information and guidance — Albania: blood feuds”, June 2014. The State party also refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.