CCPR/C/119/D/2240/2013 4.16 Coming to the examination of the author’s case by the Refugee Appeals Board, the State party asserts that the decision to uphold the refusal by the Danish Immigration Service to grant asylum was made by the Board on the basis of a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case, comprising a specific and individualized assessment of the author’s asylum grounds combined with its background knowledge of the general situation in Afghanistan and the specific details of the case. The State party therefore asserts that the author is attempting 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. The State party submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to findings of the Board, which is better placed to assess findings of fact in the author’s case. The State party also avers that all information, including the author’s medical record from the Danish Red Cross, was taken into consideration in forming its decision. The State party provided an official translation of the Board’s decision. 4.17 Regarding the assessment made by the Board as to the credibility of the author’s statements, the State party reiterated the decision of the Board of 21 November 2012 in which it was found that the author had not rendered it probable that he would be persecuted upon his return to Afghanistan. The conclusion was reached on the basis of the author having made inconsistent statements during the proceedings and the fact that his statements were not credible. The State party therefore submitted that there was no reason to question the assessment made by the Board. 4.18 The State party also observes on this point that the author’s statement on the attack in August 2009 and the subsequent events appear improbable, in view of the background information available on Afghanistan concerning the activities and mode of operation of the Taliban relative to persons suspected by the Taliban of supporting the Government and/or cooperating with foreign organizations. 4.19 The State party argues additionally that the author had also changed and expanded his statement on other points in connection with proceedings before Danish authorities. For example, the author only told his then-assigned counsel immediately before the Board hearings that he had recognized one of the original attackers from the taxi incident as being someone he had previously seen in the compound of the ministry in Kabul and that he had again recognized that person as one of the three who had come to his home in March 2011. Moreover, the author had only for the first time said to his then-assigned counsel that two persons had tried to get hold of him about two months after his discharge, and also did not say until the Board hearing that he had requested the ministry’s office in Paktika Province to find a taxi driver they trusted. 4.20 The State party also observed that the author had made inconsistent statements about the move after the Taliban had visited his home in March 2011. At the interview with the Danish Immigration Service, the author stated that he had lived in the new house, which was situated about one and a half kilometres away from his family’s former home, for a few days until his departure on 21 June 2011. However, the author stated to his then-appointed counsel and at the Board hearing that he had lived in the new house for two or three months until his departure from Afghanistan. The author was consequently, according to his own statement, able to take up residence for three months about one and a half or two kilometres away from the home at which the Taliban had sought him out, without being sought out or otherwise harassed by the Taliban. 4.21 The State party observes that the author has had the assistance of an interpreter for his mother tongue, Dari, at all interviews and hearings, and that he also subsequently had an opportunity to read his statements together with an interpreter before he chose to sign them. 4.22 The State party therefore asserts that no evidence has come to light through the proceedings before the Committee which has given the State party reason to change its assessment of the author’s credibility. 4.23 The State party also asserts that the fact that the author has scars on his body cannot be found to render it probable that the author was persecuted by the Taliban prior to his departure from Afghanistan. In that connection, the State party observed that in view of the general security situation in Afghanistan and information on the many violent incidents in the country, the relevant injuries to the author must be considered, in the State party’s 6