Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2651/2015 a quasi-judicial body, are final. However, aliens may bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, whose review is limited to points of law. Members of the RAB are independent and cannot accept or seek directions from, or discuss a case with, the appointing or nominating authority, including the central administration of the Ministry of Immigration and Integration (previously the Ministry of Justice). On the closed nature of hearings before the RAB and the absence of educational requirements for interpreters, the State party notes that the author did not request that others be allowed to attend her hearing, and did not identify any interpretation errors. Moreover, the DIS and the RAB are very attentive to the adequacy of interpretation and will suspend a hearing if problems arise. As for the benefits of audio recordings, the State party notes that a case officer makes a written report of the asylum-seeker’s statements before the DIS and that after the interview, the record is read to the asylum-seeker, who can comment on and correct it and elaborate. A summary record is also made of the asylumseeker’s statements before the RAB, and any issues are clarified during the hearing. 10 In the present case, the author has not claimed that any errors or misunderstandings affected the decision of the RAB. 6.2 On the author’s claim that it would be unfair to enforce her removal given the alternating decisions on her case, the State party notes that the fact that it took almost two years for the DIS to decide does not imply that she must be considered as falling within section 7 of the Aliens Act. Moreover, the RAB accepted her account, and she has not explained how her files from Italy or UNHCR would have contributed to her case. Further, she has not explained how the negative comment made by the DIS representative affected the decision of the RAB or the Committee’s consideration of the present communication. 6.3 The State party submits that the author has incorrectly argued that the DIS decided that she must be deported to Italy. In fact, the DIS concluded that it could not consider as established that she would risk persecution in Ethiopia. As the RAB confirmed this conclusion, it was irrelevant to assess whether Italy could serve as her first country of asylum. In cases where the DIS found that an asylum seeker did not fall within section 7 of the Aliens Act, it was the usual practice, at the time of the submission of her asylum application, to make an alternative assessment of the existence of an internal flight alternative or another country of first asylum for the purpose of a subsequent hearing before the RAB. The author’s counsel who filed the initial submission in the present communication also represented her before the RAB and it was clear from her brief that they were aware that the case focused on her grounds against returning to Ethiopia. Given her expertise in domestic proceedings, the counsel could not have been in doubt about the meaning of the decision of the RAB. 6.4 The State party reiterates that the author cannot be considered a high-profile individual for the Ethiopian authorities, that she carried out all of her activities concerning the OLF outside Ethiopia and that she was never identified in this regard. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the Ethiopian authorities have any information, much less documentation, on these activities. Further, she does not justify her argument that the benefit of the doubt should be accorded to her in respect of this claim. Neither has she explained how her status as a single mother of a child born out of wedlock would lead to a risk of a violation of articles 6 or 7 under the Covenant. Moreover, despite the general security situation and the difficult conditions of Oromo people in Ethiopia, including increasing numbers of anti-government demonstrations in the Oromia and Amhara regions and the declaration of a state of emergency in October 2016, it cannot be concluded that any contact or affiliation with Oromo people would justify granting asylum. Author’s additional comments 7.1 On 8 June 2017, the author submitted additional comments. She confirms that she did not make any request for others to be present at her hearing before the RAB and that she made no complaint against the interpretation. She only intended to illustrate general weaknesses in the domestic asylum system. 7.2 She reiterates her fear for her and her son’s lives upon removal to Ethiopia because of her young age when she fled Ethiopia, her father’s activities for the OLF that led to his torture and death, her own support for the OLF, the lack of family support and the fact that her son 10 K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.6. 7