CCPR/C/119/D/2602/2015 to five-year departure bans in case of their return to Albania, including by referring to the competent authority in Albania. Author’s additional submissions 5.1 On 10 January 2016, the author reiterated his claims at length. He submits that a forced return to Albania would pose a direct threat to his and his family’s lives, in breach of article 6 of the Covenant. They live in constant fear of being killed, due to the threat posed by the unresolved blood feud in Albania. The author disagrees with the State party’s statement that his asylum request was not fully substantiated. Although, the Board acknowledged that the family had been involved in a blood feud involving four families in Albania, it rejected the family’s request for asylum, giving decisive weight to minor inconsistences in the statements of the author and his wife about the dates of departure from Albania and the lack of connection between the attacks of 2004 and 2008 and the blood feud. The author submits that it has been shown that those attacks were related to the conflict, which proves the author’s central role in the blood feud and puts his and his family’s lives at risk if returned to Albania. This threat is supported by the following circumstances: the subsidiary protection granted to the author’s cousin in France; reports by Albanian organizations and other countries that the Albanian authorities are unable to protect victims of blood feuds; the attempted murder of the author’s nephew in 2014; and the threat from the Hi. family in 2012 that the author’s family still owes lives. 5.2 Furthermore, the author’s attempts to find a solution to stay in Albania, particularly by solving the conflict through mediation with the participation of several official mediators, were unsuccessful. The family decided to leave Albania when, during the mediation process, they received a death threat from the Hi. family. The author challenges as unfounded the Board’s argument that the attempted murder of his nephew in 2014 and supporting documents appeared fabricated in order to support his asylum case. He claims that valid and official documentation was presented to the Board, which was encouraged to contact the Albanian authorities to verify the documents. On 17 August 2015, the author filed a complaint with the Board and the Danish Ombudsperson, concerning the dismissal of the documentation by the Board, which records the blood feud, how it jeopardizes the family’s lives and the inability of the police to protect them from persecution. The author submits that the Board is a quasi-judicial body and its decisions are not subject to appeal to domestic courts. 5.3 On 4 December 2016, the author claimed that his children considered Denmark as their only home, since his two oldest children had no memories of living in Albania and his youngest child had been born in Denmark. The children are thriving at school and kindergarten, where they have integrated themselves. They speak fluent Danish and are excellent students at school. In Albania, they will not have access to school because, to ensure their safety, they will be forced to live in isolation and hiding. This will violate their basic human rights. 5.4 The author and his family are currently living in Denmark. Their deportation was postponed 12 hours before it was supposed to take place. The author adds that the family of the Prosecutor General of Albania, A.L., was forced to leave Albania because of threats against them. He appends a newspaper article in this connection. According to the author, this confirms that the Albanian authorities are unable to protect Albanian nationals. The author and his family are suffering from the fear of return to Albania, they are undergoing psychological and family counselling in this connection and in relation to the prolonged handling of their case by the State party’s authorities. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before examining any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7