CCPR/C/120/D/2601/2015 losing his life or becoming a victim of torture or cruel or degrading treatment if returned to Iraq. He submits that the Danish authorities did not adequately assess the risk that he would be subjected to harm if he were forcibly removed to Iraq. 3.4 In addition, the author claims that his asylum application has been considered only by the administrative authorities, without a possibility of appeal to a court. Moreover, he contends that the Board, with the exception of its decision of 2004, did not provide for an oral statement from him to clarify the new documentation produced on his and his siblings’ prominence as Sunni Muslims, and that his right to legal aid was limited since the fee granted to assigned counsel in connection with hearings before the Board covers only six hours of preparation. He claims that this amounts to a violation of the fair trial guarantees, in violation of article 14 of the Covenant. 3.5 The author further argues that another fair trial issue derives from the absence of translation or language education requirements for the interpreters used by the Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board, and from the lack of audio recording of the asylum interviews. The author also claims that since the translator used during his interview in 2004 was a Shia Muslim from the Islamic Republic Iran, he was reluctant to reveal his situation and he considered that he could not safely make reference to the fact that he belonged to a well-known Sunni family. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 29 October 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits, elaborating first on the author’s asylum proceedings and the decisions of the Board of 1 March 2004, 10 March 2008, 4 April 2014 and 23 October 2015. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Board, which it considers to be an independent, quasi-judicial body.8 The State party submits that the author stated on his arrival in Denmark that he did not want to be a soldier in Saddam Hussein’s Jerusalem Army. The State party recalls that, since the Saddam Hussein regime had fallen, the Board decided, on 1 March 2004, that those grounds could not justify asylum. Additionally, it found that the general conditions in Iraq were not sufficient to justify asylum, as the author did not establish a specific and individual risk of persecution. The Board also found that neither selling his business to raise money to allow his escape nor the inability of his siblings to help him could justify granting him asylum. 4.3 The State party notes that the author submitted new information to the Board on the situation in Iraq but the Board decided, on 10 March 2008, that the information was not of such a nature as to justify the reopening of his case. The Board reiterated that, generally, poor conditions in a country cannot justify granting asylum. 4.4 The State party submits that, in an application for reopening the author’s asylum case in 2012, the author provided new information about his family’s prominence and the resulting conflicts, including the suspicious death of his sister and his fear of Hakim AlZameli. On 4 April 2014, the Board decided that this new information was insufficient to give rise to a different assessment of the matter. The Board noted that the information regarding his sister was based solely on an assumption held by the author and was not supported by facts or evidence, as was the claim of his problems with Mr. Al-Zameli. 4.5 The State party submits that, after the decision of the Board of 4 April 2014, the author submitted updated information regarding the rise of ISIL. Since the author comes from Baghdad, which, according to available information, has been controlled by the security forces of the Government of Iraq, the Board found that the author failed to render it probable that he would be at real risk of persecution or abuse. 4.6 As regards the admissibility of an alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication. He has not established that there are 8 4 See, e.g., communication No. 2379/2014, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.1-4.3.