CCPR/C/119/D/2602/2015 4.4 In the light of the above, the Board did not accept the author’s explanations about the extent of the conflict. The Board rejected the author’s request to stay the proceedings pending his request for a statement from the family conflict mediator, considering that letters from blood feud communities “circulated widely”. With regard to the author’s wife, the Board emphasized that she referred solely to the author’s grounds for asylum without claiming that she had independent grounds for asylum. The Board therefore found that the author and his family had failed to demonstrate that they would face a specific and personal risk of persecution or that they would be at a real risk of ill-treatment, as specified in section 7 of the Aliens Act.1 4.5 On 25 February 2015, the Board refused to reopen the asylum proceedings in the author’s case, relying on its decision of 11 June 2014. The Board observed that it accepted as true the author’s statement on the actual sequence of events, but was unable to accept his claims regarding the extent of the conflict with the other families. It upheld the decision that the conflict was of a private-law nature and that the author would have to seek the protection of the local authorities in that respect. The Board also noted that the author had not been personally contacted or threatened by members of the other families for a very long period of time, that the killings committed as part of the conflict had been investigated, which had resulted in the perpetrators being convicted, and that the author had not applied for asylum during his stay in Italy but had returned to, and taken up residence in, Albania. The fact that the author was the sole remaining male member of his family in Albania did not change the Board’s conclusion. Furthermore, the Board found that the attempt to kill the author’s nephew on 16 August 2014 had no connection with the author’s case and that the letter issued by Asylret on 27 October 20142 and the incident itself appeared fabricated for the occasion. For the same reason, it gave no weight to the letters of the Albanian Human Rights Group in support of the author’s application. It rejected the author’s argument about his eligibility for subsidiary protection under European Union legislation on the ground that such rules on subsidiary protection were not part of Danish law. In the circumstances, the Board concluded that the author and his family had failed to prove that there would be a real risk of persecution or abuse in case of their forced return to Albania, within the meaning of section 7 of the Aliens Act. 4.6 The State party provided a detailed description of the tasks and composition of the Board, proceedings before it, as well as the legal basis of its decisions. 3 4.7 The State party considers that the author has failed to establish that there are sufficient grounds for believing that his and his family’s lives would be at risk, in case of deportation to Albania. Therefore, the State party considers that the author’s claim under 1 Section 7 of the Aliens (Consolidation) Act reads: (1) Upon application, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien falls within the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951). (2) Upon application, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his country of origin. An application as referred to in the first sentence hereof is also considered an application for a residence permit under subsection (1). 2 3 (3) A residence permit under subsections (1) and (2) can be refused if the alien has already obtained protection in another country, or if the alien has close ties with another country in which the alien must be deemed to be able to obtain protection. In a letter dated 27 October 2014, Asyrlet submitted a request for the reopening of proceedings on behalf of the author and his family. It referred to the attempted murder of the author’s nephew on 16 August 2016, which proved that the conflict had not lost its intensity. It also referred to the letter by the head of the G. village and the mayor of the municipality of F.K., on file, that the relationships among the families had not improved. It also referred to a report of the Committee for National Reconciliation (2013), according to which the police were unable to protect people at risk of being killed and the legal system was inefficient and sometimes corrupt. It also referred to a statement by an asylum seeker, a victim of a blood feud, according to which the Danish authorities had passed information about her asylum case to the Albanian authorities, which registered her family as criminals and issued them with departure bans. Asyrlet submitted that the author and his family risked reprisals from the Albanian authorities if their documents were passed on to them. For a full description, see communication No. 2379/2014, Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.1-4.3. 5