CCPR/C/117/D/2493/2014 benefit of the doubt should be applied. The State party observes, in this context, that the Refugee Appeals Board made its decision on 6 August 2014 on the basis of a procedure during which the author had the opportunity to present his views to the Board, both in writing and orally, with the assistance of his legal counsel. At the Board’s hearing, the author was allowed to make a statement and answer questions. Then counsel and the representative of the Danish Immigration Service were allowed to make closing speeches, whereupon the author was again presented with the opportunity to make a final statement. In these circumstances, the State party maintains that the Refugee Appeals Board included all relevant information in its decision and that the present communication has not disclosed any information substantiating the author’s risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or being killed if returned to Somalia. 4.11 With regard to the author’s claim that his return would violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant given the general situation in Somalia, the State party submits that in its decision of 6 August 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board found that it could not be assumed that the general security situation in the area surrounding Qoryooley was of such a nature that everybody returning there may be deemed to be at a real risk of abuse contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It notes that the Refugee Appeals Board carefully considered the background information concerning the country situation, and that the Board has a comprehensive collection of background material on conditions in Somalia, including all the information to which the author has referred. According to the State party, the Board made its decision on a “fully sufficient basis”, and it was not necessary to collect further information on the situation in the area. In common with the Refugee Appeals Board, the State party finds that the continued unrest in the region cannot in and of itself be taken to mean that the author, who is from a governmentcontrolled area and appears to be a very low-profile individual, would be at risk of abuse falling within articles 7 or 9 of the Covenant. In this respect, the State party observes that according to the background information available, including the report of the SecretaryGeneral on Somalia issued on 25 September 2014,9 African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and Somali forces pushed Al-Shabaab out of 10 towns, including Qoryooley, in March and April 2014. Qoryooley has been controlled by the Government of Somalia since then. The State party also observes that according to the article “Somali forces repel Al-Shabaab attacks in Qoryooley, Mahas”,10 government forces had managed to repel the attacks by Al-Shabaab. Accordingly, contrary to the author’s statements, it is false to maintain that the situation in Somalia was not taken into account during the author’s asylum proceedings and that the Refugee Appeals Board did not investigate the dangerous situation in the area at issue. 4.12 With regard to the author’s claim under article 9 of the Covenant, the State party reiterates that the author has merely stated that his return to Somalia would constitute a violation of that provision. Therefore, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of a flagrant breach of article 9 if he is returned to Somalia and that the high threshold that must apply in the present case has therefore not been met.11 4.13 In conclusion, the State party maintains that the Refugee Appeals Board has assessed all the relevant information and the author has not presented before the Committee any new information to substantiate his claim that he would risk being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or being killed if returned to Somalia. The State party refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in R.C. v. 9 10 11 See S/2014/699. Published on 5 May 2014 on www.sabahionline.com. See para. 4.6 above. 7