CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016 submits that the State party should establish minimal educational requirements for interpreters used by the Board to limit the scope for misunderstanding and errors. 5.7 By upholding the decision to reject the author’s asylum claim, without any valid credibility concern, the State party has exposed the author to a great risk of being subjected to threats to life, or to torture or ill-treatment, which would amount to a violation of articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant, if he were deported to China. The author recalls that his political “offence” was committed in the disguise of his church, which should justify his allegations of a risk of a violation of article 18 of the Covenant in the event of his removal to China. Accordingly, the author requests the Committee not to lift the interim measures. Additional submission from the State party 6.1 On 13 September 2017, the State party submitted additional observations. It argues that the author’s additional observations of 17 February 2017 do not provide any new factual information on his original grounds for asylum. It therefore reiterates its observations of 21 September 2016. 6.2 As regards the author’s assertion that the Board did not seek to clarify the reasons why his sisters disagreed with the Board’s assessment, the State party submits that the Board’s decision of 24 September 2015 by which it refused to reopen the author’s asylum case considered that the letter of 12 September 2013 and the subsequent letter of 25 August 2015 from the author’s sisters did not provide any new information. The relevant information had therefore been considered by the Board. 6.3 As concerns the unavailability of appeals against the decisions of the Board, the State party recalls the case law of the Supreme Court that the judicial review of the Board’s decisions is limited to a review on points of law, including any inadequacy in the basis for the relevant decision, procedural errors and unlawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the calling of witnesses, the State party reiterates that the Board found no basis for allowing the author’s sisters to testify as they had no first-hand knowledge of the author’s activities in his country of origin. As regards the author’s general submission that no educational requirements were made for interpreters used by the Board, the State party finds that it has not been rendered probable that the interpreting gave rise to any errors or misunderstandings affecting the Board’s decision, nor has the author made any specific claim to that effect.11 6.4 As to the author’s submission that the Board did not render a thorough examination of his case, because its decision of 4 September 2013 had contained incorrect time references and because the Board had given a very short reasoning, the State party observes that the Board has freedom to assess evidence and that it made its decision on the basis of an overall assessment of all the information provided in the case. The incorrect time references in the Board’s decision of 4 September 2013 were due to an error on the part of the Board, which were corrected in the State party’s observations. However, this error could not independently lead to a different outcome as a thorough assessment had been carried out as to whether the conditions in section 7 of the Aliens Act had been met, and this therefore did not justify a revision of the decision by the Board. Moreover, the author has not established that the incorrect time references in the decision had had a crucial impact on the Board’s assessment. 6.5 The State party further reiterates that the author has not sufficiently established that it would constitute a violation of article 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant if he and his minor son were returned to China. The author’s communication merely reflects that he disagrees with the outcome of the assessment of his specific circumstances and the background information by the Board. In his additional observations, the author failed to establish that the assessment by the Board was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. The author also failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board had failed to take properly into account. 11 10 See, e.g., K. v. Denmark (footnote 8 above), para. 7.6.