CCPR/C/120/D/2601/2015 substantial grounds for believing that his life would be at risk or that he would be in danger of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Iraq. 4.7 As regards the admissibility of an alleged violation of article 14 of the Covenant, the State party submits that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1).9 4.8 On the merits of the alleged violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author has not sufficiently established that the Covenant would be breached if he were returned to Iraq. The State party submits that the author’s situation prior to his departure in 2002 cannot justify asylum, since Saddam Hussein’s regime fell in 2003 and any fear of being recruited is no longer justifiable. The State party notes that general conditions in Iraq cannot justify asylum, especially since the author is from Baghdad, which is not under the control of ISIL. 4.9 As regards the author’s fear of ethnic cleansing and reprisals, particularly by Hakim Al-Zameli, the State party submits that the author has not demonstrated any direct confrontation with Mr. Al-Zameli. The State party also notes that the author has not shown that he would be such a high-profile individual as to be in a directly adversarial position to Mr. Al-Zameli or other Shia Muslim group. Additionally, while noting the tense relations between Sunni and Shia Muslims, the State party considers that the fact that the author is a Sunni Muslim is not sufficient to conclude that he would be at risk in case of return to Iraq. 4.10 In relation to the author’s family connections, the State party points out that the author did not raise this argument until the 2012 proceedings, 10 years after he first entered Denmark. The State party notes that the alleged searches of the author’s home were unsubstantiated and that, even if true, they did not have any consequences. 4.11 On the merits of the alleged violations of article 14 of the Covenant, the State party submits that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1). The State party further observes that the Board assesses whether new information may result in a different decision. It therefore considers that the procedure complies with the two-instance principle. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 26 February 2016, the author submitted that his forcible removal to Iraq would constitute a violation of his rights under articles 6, 7 and 14 or, alternatively, 13 of the Covenant,10 as he would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of being killed or exposed to torture or ill-treatment, linked to a combination of personal threats and the general situation in Iraq. Although there have allegedly been several factual errors in the State party’s observations of 29 October 2015, such as regarding the dates of his family’s flight to the Syrian Arab Republic, the author expressed satisfaction that the State party did not question the veracity of his statements. 5.2 The author’s application for asylum had already been refused in January 2003, only 10 months after his arrival in Denmark, while the Saddam Hussein regime was still in power. He claims that, at that time, he had a legitimate expectation of being granted asylum as he had deserted from the army. His return to Iraq would then have led to his death. Although the State party considered individual aspects of his situation, it did not properly assess the risk of death or torture resulting from the combination of risk factors that he was facing. 5.3 He adds that as his name points to an affiliation with the Dulaimy tribe, he only disclosed it after 10 years in Denmark mainly to protect his sisters and other family members in Baghdad. The Dulaimy tribe is not only “a known Sunni tribe”, as the State 9 10 See, e.g., communication No. 2186/2012, Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 6.3. The author’s initial claim of a violation of article 14 of the Covenant was changed to a claim of a violation of article 13. 5