CCPR/C/117/D/2291/2013 allegation that one of the authors’ relatives has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom cannot lead to a different assessment of their asylum application. No further information about the specific circumstances of the relative’s asylum claim is available. The authors’ non-specific information about the assault of a family member and their son’s escape from Pakistan cannot lead to a different assessment of the authors’ asylum case either. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined and has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee also notes that it is undisputed that the authors have exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.3 Concerning the authors’ claim under article 14 of the Covenant that they were unable to appeal the negative decision of the Refugee Appeals Board to a judicial body, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to aliens’ expulsion do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1) but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 7 Furthermore, the latter provision offers asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal to judicial courts.8 On this basis, the Committee concludes that the authors’ claim is inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. As to the authors’ claim that their rights under article 13 were violated, the Committee observes that the authors have not alleged that they were unable to effectively present their case before competent Danish authorities as to why they should not be removed,9 and that, in addition to their asylum claim, the authors filed a humanitarian application for residence that was evaluated twice by the State party’s authorities. The Committee therefore considers that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their claim under article 13 and concludes that such claim is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation. 7.4 As for the authors’ claim regarding the risk they would face in case of return to Pakistan due to their adherence to the Ahmadi Muslim faith, the Committee considers that the claim has been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility in connection with articles 6 and 7, and that article 18 cannot be dissociated from the author’s allegations under articles 6 and 7.10 Accordingly, the Committee declares this claim admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. 7 8 9 10 See communications No. 2007/2010, J.J.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 8.5; No. 1494/2006, A.C. and her children, S., M. and E.B. v. Netherlands, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 2008, para 8.4; and No. 1234/2003, P.K. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 20 March 2007, paras. 7.4 and 7.5. See communication No. 2288/2013, Y v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, para. 6.4; and general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62. See general comment No. 15 on the position of aliens under the Covenant, para. 10. See communication No. 2329/2014, Z v. Denmark, Views adopted on 15 July 2015, para. 6.4. 7