CCPR/C/119/D/2240/2013 opinion, to have been inflicted in incidents not justifying asylum. Moreover, according to the author’s own statements, the State party notes that the author performed compulsory military service, including carrying arms, at a time when the general security situation in Afghanistan was uncertain. 4.24 Additionally, the State party posits that the general situation in Afghanistan is not in itself of such a nature as to entitle the author to asylum. 4.25 Overall, the State party observes that the author, who, according to his own statement, has had 12 years of schooling, has not been able to give a reasonable explanation as to the contradictions and improbabilities that characterize his statements. Against this background, the State party finds no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board, according to which the author has not established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he was in danger of being deprived of his life or subjected to torture when he was returned to Afghanistan. For the same reason, the State party asserts that it has not been substantiated that the return of the author to Afghanistan implied a breach of articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. 4.26 The State party therefore reiterates its submission that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, under rule 96 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, and that the communication is therefore manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party concludes that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the author was in danger of being deprived of his life or subjected to torture on return to Afghanistan and therefore his return to Afghanistan did not constitute a violation of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant. Comments of the author’s counsel on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 30 December 2013, the author’s counsel provided his comments. The counsel referred to two other cases which were ongoing at the same time and in relation to which the State party had refused to allow ample time between the decision to reopen and the deportation, which the counsel avers is a pattern of behaviour with the intention of frustrating the work of the Committee. In the other cases, interim measures were granted and the deportations were stopped — in one case on the same day as the deportation was to be carried out, and in the other case the Refugee Appeals Board decided to reopen the case. 5.2 The counsel submits that the failure of the State party to complete its consideration of the author’s case in time enough to act in case of a negative outcome meant that there was not sufficient time for the Committee to consider the case and as a result the author was deported. He also submits that he has lost contact with the author since his deportation on 15 April 2013 and that he is feared to have been killed or kidnapped, since he had been told to contact his counsel immediately upon his arrival in Afghanistan, which he did not do and he has not been heard from since. 5.3 The counsel makes reference to a case before the Committee against Torture in which interim measures had not been granted and the complainant had been deported, but a violation was found by the Committee against Torture regarding his refoulement to Afghanistan and the State party welcomed the author in that case to come back to Denmark, where he now lives.10 Luckily, he was traced to Pakistan, where he had gone into hiding. The counsel therefore requests the Human Rights Committee to consider this matter and also requests that the State party provide an official translation of the Refugee Appeals Board decision not to reopen the case of 12 April 2013 and the Danish Immigration Service decision of 7 December 2011, since again, the unofficial translations were made in such a hurry, owing to the State party’s delay, that they are not sufficiently accurate to be used as a basis on which to make a decision in the present case. 10 See Committee against Torture communication No. 464/2011, K.H. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2012. 7