CCPR/C/119/D/2240/2013 5.4 Finally, the counsel states that he hardly had time between receiving the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board and filing with the Committee, in order to attempt to stop the imminent deportation, or to translate the medical file of the author which shows that he was stabbed and shot and that he has many scars on his body. The counsel also requested that this be translated by the State party. 5.5 As to the State party’s submission, the counsel refers to the statement that the author has not shown a prima facie case of violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, since the communication is not sufficiently substantiated in the view of the Government of Denmark. With regard to the criteria for admissibility, the counsel submits that the author must be able to demonstrate a basis for his fear of persecution in his country of origin. The counsel refers to the general situation in Afghanistan as being one of the worst in the world for human rights and security concerns. Furthermore, he asserts that the author was able to easily establish a prima facie case in light of the injuries that he is proven to have suffered, such as gunshot and stab wounds. The counsel states that these are clear indications of persecution he suffered in the past and that this forms the basis of his fear that such treatment would be repeated upon his return to his country of origin. On this basis, the author has clearly shown a prima facie case and therefore there should be no issue as to admissibility in this case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 As to the author’s claim under article 14 of the Covenant that he was unable to appeal the negative decision of the Refugee Appeals Board to a judicial body, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to aliens’ expulsion 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) but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 11 Furthermore, the latter provision offers asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal to judicial courts. The Committee therefore concludes that this claim is inadmissible ratione materiae, under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee also considers that even if the author had invoked article 13 of the Covenant, his claims on this issue remain insufficiently substantiated. 6.5 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim with respect to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant should be held inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation. The Committee considers, however, that the author has adequately explained why he feared that forcible return to Afghanistan would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under articles 6 and 7 with plausible arguments in support thereof. Accordingly, the Committee declares the claim admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. 11 8 See Human Rights Committee communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 8.5. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62.