CCPR/C/119/D/2240/2013 4.9 The State party explained the activities, organization and jurisdiction of the Refugee Appeals Board, and explained that decisions of the Board were final, which meant that there was no avenue for appeal against the Board’s decisions. However, under the Constitution, aliens may bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, which have jurisdiction to adjudicate any matter concerning the limits to the competence of a public authority. This is limited to a review of points of law, including shortcomings in the basis of the decision and the illegal exercise of discretion. The Board’s assessment of the evidence before it is not subject to review.7 4.10 In reference to the author’s submissions, the State party refers to his communication to the Committee stating that returning him to Afghanistan would constitute a breach of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant as he would risk persecution by the Taliban. 4.11 The State party reiterates that the author’s counsel observed in his communication to the Committee that the Refugee Appeals Board found the author’s asylum grounds, concerning the attack and injury, to be lacking in probability and credibility. In that connection, the counsel for the author stated that the fact of the injuries suffered by the author was proof that he had been persecuted prior to his departure from Afghanistan. His counsel therefore asserted that upon return to Afghanistan the author risked being subjected to further persecution, contrary to article 6 or 7 of the Covenant. 4.12 The State party refers to the fact that the author’s counsel had submitted that the Refugee Appeals Board had called into question the author’s credibility, despite the fact that it appeared from the Danish Red Cross certificate that the author had scars from being shot and stabbed. He stated that those objective facts had to be seen together with the general situation in Afghanistan for persons attacked by the Taliban. 4.13 The State party submits that the author had in fact failed to show a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, under rule 96 (b) of the rules of procedure of the Committee, as it had not been established that sufficient grounds existed on which to believe that the author was in danger of being subjected to torture when he was returned to Afghanistan. The State party therefore claims that the author’s communication is manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. The State party also asserted that it was the responsibility of the author to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under rule 96 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Should the Committee find the author’s communication admissible, the State party submits that the author has not sufficiently established that the return of the author to Afghanistan constitutes a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 4.14 The State party reiterates that article 6 protects the right to life, which has both a negative component, of not depriving someone of their life, and a positive component, in that the State party should adopt measures to protect the right to life. 8 It follows that article 7, which states that no one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 9 has as its aim the protection of both the physical and mental integrity of the individual. It is the duty of the State party to afford everyone protection through such legislative and other measures as may be necessary against acts prohibited by article 7. 4.15 The State party also reiterates the jurisprudence contained in the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, according to which States parties must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by non-refoulement. Furthermore, it explained how the obligations under articles 6 and 7 were reflected in domestic provisions, under section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. 7 8 9 For a full explanation of proceedings before the Refugee Appeals Board, please refer to the Views of the Committee in communication No. 2422/2014, Z v. Denmark, Views adopted on 11 March 2016. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, para. 1. The State party cites general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 5