CCPR/C/117/D/2493/2014 Sweden,12 where the Court stated, inter alia, that “as a general principle, the national authorities are best placed to assess not just the facts but, more particularly, the credibility of witnesses since it is they who have had an opportunity to see, hear and assess the demeanour of the individual concerned”.13 The State party also refers to the Court’s judgment in M.E. v. Denmark,14 wherein the Court, inter alia, concluded that the examination of the relevant asylum case by the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board had been adequate and that due process guarantees had been observed. The State party notes that similar conclusions were also reached by the Committee, in Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark,15 wherein the Committee found, inter alia, that the authors’ refugee claims had been thoroughly assessed by the State party’s authorities. 4.14 In the light of the above, the State party submits that the same guarantees of due process were also applied in the present case. The decision to uphold the refusal of the Danish Immigration Service to grant asylum was adopted by the Refugee Appeals Board, which is a collegial and independent body of a quasi-judicial nature. The decision was made on the basis of a procedure during which the author had the opportunity to present his views to the Board with the assistance of legal counsel. The Board made a thorough assessment of the author’s credibility, the background information available and the author’s specific circumstances, but found that the author had failed to demonstrate that it was probable that he would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or would be killed if he were returned to Somalia. Consequently, according to the State party, the present communication merely reflects the author’s disagreement with the assessment of his credibility and with the background material used by the Refugee Appeals Board. In this connection, the State party notes that the author has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Refugee Appeals Board may have failed to take properly into account. According to the State party, the author is in fact trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of his asylum case reassessed by the Committee. In this respect, the State party submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of fact made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which was better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. Thus, the author’s return to Somalia will not constitute a breach of articles 7 or 9 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 6 July 2015, the author submitted further information. He maintains that irrespective of where in the south of Somalia he were to stay, Al-Shabaab will find him and he will not be able to live in peace, and in the rest of Somalia, he will always be persecuted because his clan is suppressed. He also states that he recently spoke with his mother for the first time since he fled Somalia and that she told him that Al-Shabaab was still looking for him, and that members of Al-Shabaab had unsuccessfully tried to kidnap the author’s younger brother, but he had escaped and the author’s family had now left their home town. The author also submits that his burnt leg has been operated on twice because of severe pain and soreness. Furthermore, he reiterates that his father and brother were killed by Al−Shabaab “when they were trying to flee from their home town. Al-Shabaab thought the father and brother were traitors” and shot them. Finally, the author submits that the situation in Somalia has “severely aggravated in the past years” and that he will be at great 12 13 14 15 8 Application No. 41827/07, judgment of 9 March 2010, para. 52. The State party also refers to the Court’s judgment of 26 June 2014 in M.E. v. Sweden, application No. 71398/12, para. 78. Application No. 58363/10, judgment of 8 July 2014, para. 63. Communication No. 2186/2012, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5.