CCPR/C/117/D/2493/2014 where he or she was at real risk of a flagrant breach of that article. However, as with article 6, a high threshold must apply. A flagrant breach of article 5 would occur only if, for example, the receiving State arbitrarily detained an applicant for many years without any intention of bringing him or her to trial. A flagrant breach of article 5 might also occur if an applicant would be at risk of being imprisoned for a substantial period in the receiving State, having previously been convicted after a flagrantly unfair trial.” The State party submits in this connection that the crucial factor when assessing whether article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights can be deemed to have extraterritorial effect is whether there is a real risk of a flagrant breach of that article, however a high threshold applies. Accordingly, given that the author in the present case has failed to establish in any way how he risks treatment contrary to article 9 of the Covenant if returned to Somalia, the State party maintains that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of the admissibility of his communication under article 9, and therefore this part of the communication is also manifestly unfounded and should be considered inadmissible. 4.6 If the Committee finds the author’s communication admissible, the State party submits that the author has not sufficiently established that his return to Somalia would amount to a breach of articles 7 or 9 of the Covenant. In particular, with regard to his claim under article 7 of the Covenant, the State party observes that in his communication to the Committee he did not provide any new or specific information on his situation beyond the information that had already been assessed and applied as the basis for the decision made by the Refugee Appeals Board on 6 August 2014. Under Danish law, an asylum seeker must provide such information as is required for deciding whether he falls within section 7 of the Aliens Act. It is incumbent upon asylum seekers to substantiate their grounds for seeking asylum and to show that the conditions for granting asylum are met. The State party also notes that according to paragraphs 195 and 196 of the Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be furnished in the first place by the applicant himself”, and that “it is a general legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the person submitting a claim”. The State party further notes that the principle that it is normally incumbent upon asylum seekers to substantiate their grounds for seeking asylum has also been expressed in the case law of the Human Rights Committee.8 4.7 The State party adds that in the present case, the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author had failed “to render probable his grounds for asylum”. The Board could not accept as a fact the author’s statement that he had been persecuted by Al-Shabaab, nor could it accept as a fact that prior to his departure he had experienced conflicts due to his clan affiliation. In this respect, the Refugee Appeals Board emphasized, inter alia, that the author’s statements with regard to the approaches by Al-Shabaab, including with regard to his attempted escape after the fourth approach, appeared vague and fabricated for the occasion. The State party observes in this connection that during the asylum interview on 2 April 2014, the author stated that Al-Shabaab had contacted him four times in 2011, each time in the shop where he worked or at home. However, during the “substantive asylum interview” conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 23 April 2014, the author stated that he had been at a friend’s house the last time he had been contacted by Al−Shabaab. Furthermore, during the “substantive asylum interview”, the author stated that in November 2011 a representative of Al-Shabaab had come to his friend’s house, where the author tried to hide. The representative had told the author that he would keep an eye on him until the others from Al-Shabaab came and took him to prison. The author had 8 The State party refers to the decision adopted by the Committee on 10 August 2006 in Khan v. Canada (CCPR/C/87/D/1302/2004). 5