CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014 necessary to have the authenticity of the news article verified. Against that background, the State party cannot give any evidential value to the document produced by the author. 4.8 The State party observes that the author fails to substantiate his reasons for considering that the submissions concerning his age entail a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. It submits that the Danish Immigration Service is the authority in charge of determining the age of asylum seekers, whenever necessary. The Section of Forensic Pathology examined the author and determined that he was 19 years old or more. On 4 July 2012, the Immigration Service decided to fix the author’s date of birth as 21 December 1992. The author appealed against this decision to the Ministry of Justice, which upheld it on 9 March 2015. The Refugee Appeals Board also assessed positively that the author had the procedural capacity and the necessary maturity to undergo the asylum procedure. The State party also submits that in cases where the asylum seeker refers to his sexuality or gender identity, the Board assesses whether the person is in a particularly vulnerable situation, taking into account the relevant guidelines of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).14 The State party considers it strange that the author did not provide any information as to how he had obtained his purported birth certificate, which was issued on 18 February 2013, while his parents had passed away almost a year before that date and, according to his own statements, he had not had any contact with his family since he left Bangladesh.15 In that connection, the State party adds that the author did not disclose the identity of the person who purportedly requested the issuance of the birth certificate and the basis on which it was issued. 4.9 The State party maintains that the author merely disagrees with the assessment of his credibility and of the background information made by the Refugee Appeals Board in his case. However, it considers that the author has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or in the assessment of the risk factors by the Board. The State party therefore considers that the author is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of his case reassessed. It further submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the facts found by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. The State party considers that there is no basis for questioning or setting aside the assessment made by the Board in the author’s case and therefore submits that the author’s return to Bangladesh will not constitute a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 29 May 2015, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He claims that he provided sufficient information to indicate that, as a homosexual, he would face the danger of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, if returned to Bangladesh. He claims that his communication should be held admissible as it has been sufficiently substantiated and all available domestic remedies have been exhausted, and that the request to lift the interim measures should be denied. 14 15 See UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (Geneva, 2011) and the UNHCR guidelines on international protection No. 9 (claims to refugee status based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity within the context of article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees), 23 October 2012. The Board decision of 19 September 2014 indicates that the author’s counsel stated that the author was not in possession of the original birth certificate. The birth certificate had been registered on 11 July 2008 because it was not until 2004 that a statute on birth certificates had been enacted in Bangladesh, making such certificates mandatory. 7