CCPR/C/119/D/2240/2013 4.4 The State party notes that, in its opinion, the Refugee Appeals Board stated that the author, as his grounds for asylum, referred to the fact that on 19 August 2009 he, as a manager in a ministry that was associated with the United Nations Development Programme, was to attend a meeting in Ghazni and had taken a taxi together with two colleagues. The driver, who turned out to be a member of the Taliban, had suddenly turned off the road and had cut the throat of the passenger in the front, and the author had been attacked by the driver and another person with knives. He had had his stomach cut open, had been hit in the head and had fallen unconscious. The other passenger had escaped. He had seen the face of the Taliban member who had attacked him. He had been hospitalized for over a year after the incident and had suffered severe and permanent injuries. Furthermore, he stated that on 6 March 2011, three Taliban men had come to his house with weapons while he hid on the roof. After the author’s departure from Afghanistan, shots had been fired at the author’s car when his brother-in-law was driving in it with the author’s wife and children. The author feared that he would be killed by the Taliban if he were returned to his country of origin. 4.5 The Refugee Appeals Board held that it could not accept the author’s statements, as he had given inconsistent statements during the asylum proceedings, and furthermore, his statements did not appear credible. Specifically, prior to the hearing before the Board, the author had stated that the front-seat passenger had had his throat cut by the driver, whereas before the Board the author had stated that the driver had stuck his knife through the passenger’s neck so that the blade came out the other side. Furthermore, the Board found it lacking in credibility that on 19 August 2009 the taxi had stopped at the very place where a person with a knife could come to the aid of the driver, particularly having regard to the author’s statement that the taxi had stopped suddenly owing to a hole in the road, after a scuffle during which the front-seat passenger had tried to grab the steering wheel. The Board found that it lacked credibility for one year and seven months to have passed between the knife attack and the Taliban seeking out the author at his home. Moreover, the fact that the Taliban had waited at the door for several minutes on 6 March 2011, which according to the author was ample time to call for help, was not credible. The Board also found lacking in credibility the claim that the author and his family had not moved house until 10 to 15 days after members of the Taliban had come to the family home. 4.6 The State party points out that upon overall assessment, the Board found that the author had not rendered it probable that he would be at risk of concrete and individual persecution in case of his return to his country of origin. 4.7 In relation to the Board’s refusal of 12 April 2013 to reopen asylum proceedings in the author’s case, the Board had held that the author’s application was grounded on his contention that its decision of 21 November 2012 was based on a linguistic misunderstanding concerning the word “halal” and that in an Afghan context the word meant slaughter, whether or not only the throat was cut, or the head was cut off altogether.6 The author also stated that he was in pain every day as a consequence of the attack on him by the Taliban during which he had been stabbed with a knife in the region of the stomach. The application was rejected on the grounds that no new substantial information had been presented and therefore the Board was able to rely on its decision of 21 November 2012 in which it had decided that its findings could not be based upon reliance on the statements of the author, owing to inconsistencies which led to a finding that he lacked credibility. The Board also observed that the author’s statement concerning the use of the word “halal” could not lead to a different outcome, as it did not resolve the inconsistency as to the method of injuring the neck of the author’s colleague. Moreover, the Board found that his statements lacked consistency on several other points. 4.8 Finally, the Board finally observed that, although it had been aware of the scars and wounds on the author’s body at the original hearing of the case, his state of health was not in itself relevant to asylum proceedings. Against that background, the Board had found that the author had not rendered it probable that he would face a risk of persecution that would justify asylum. 6 4 Referring to perceived inconsistencies in his explanation of what happened to his colleague who was travelling in the front seat of the taxi on 19 August 2009.