CCPR/C/120/D/2601/2015 The State party further reiterates that the author’s initial communication and his additional observations seem to provide no new and specific information on the conflicts in his country of origin relied upon by the author, as compared with the information available on 23 October 2015 when the Board most recently made a decision in this case. 6.10 As to the author’s claim that the Board failed to make an overall assessment of his circumstances, including his religious, family and ethnic affiliations, the State party underscores that the Board made an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the author’s case compared to the background information on the situation in Iraq. On the basis of its assessment, the Board found that the author is not facing any threat that would justify asylum under section 7 of the Aliens Act and that his return to Iraq would not constitute a breach of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Moreover, the State party considers that the information provided by the author on his clan affiliation cannot cumulatively or independently lead to a different outcome. In particular, the State party observes that the author only found the occasion to provide this information after having stayed in Denmark for 10 years. It considers that this merely reflects that the author disagrees with the Board’s assessment of his specific circumstances and the background information, and that the author has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. 6.11 The State party submits that the author is in fact trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. In submits that the Committee should give considerable weight to the findings of fact made by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. In the State party’s view, there is no basis for doubting or setting aside the assessment made by the Board, according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Iraq. In that regard, the State party refers to the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in J.K. and others v. Sweden.18 6.12 The State party reiterates that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under articles 6, 7 and 13 of the Covenant (rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure) and that those parts of the communication should therefore be considered inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. 6.13 The State party also maintains that asylum proceedings fall outside the scope of article 14 of the Covenant and that this part of the communication should therefore be considered inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.14 Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party maintains that no substantial grounds have been established to believe that it would constitute a violation of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant to return the author to Iraq, or that article 13 of the Covenant would have been violated during the procedure of the author’s asylum case. Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 30 January 2017, the author submitted comments on the State party’s additional observations, claiming that he was not aware of the right to have others present when his case was dealt with or of the right to make a complaint about the interpreter, who seemingly disliked the author. He reiterates the claims of his family’s position of prominence, 18 See application No. 59166/12, judgment of 23 August 2016, paras. 108-111, an extract of which reads as follows: “… Although the security situation in Baghdad City has deteriorated, the intensity of violence has not reached a level which would constitute, as such, a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Nor do any of the recent reports from independent international human rights protection associations referred to in paragraphs 32-34 above contain any information capable of leading to such a conclusion (para. 110). “As the general security situation in Iraq does not as such prevent the applicant’s removal, the Court must therefore assess whether their personal circumstances are such that they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 if expelled to Iraq” (para. 111). 9