CCPR/C/122/D/2595/2015 4.7 The State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board did not request a verification of the authenticity of the alleged copy of the military service call-up papers dated 11 April 2011 that the author submitted at the interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 3 February 2014. When determining whether to request a verification of the authenticity of documents produced by an asylum seeker, the Board makes an overall assessment of, inter alia, the nature and content of the documents, in conjunction with the prospect of whether such verification could lead to a different assessment of the evidence, the timing and circumstances of the production of the documents, and the credibility of the asylum seeker’s statement in the light of the general background information available on conditions in the country. The State party argues that, accordingly, the Board is under no obligation to request a verification of authenticity in cases in which an asylum seeker produces documents in support of his grounds for asylum. The State party submits that the Board took into account in its decision all relevant information and that the communication has not brought to light any information substantiating that the author will risk persecution or abuse upon his return to Egypt. It also notes that, in his complaint before the Committee, the author has not claimed that the Egyptian authorities would accuse him of being affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 18 July 2017, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He maintains that he has sufficiently substantiated his claims for the purposes of admissibility. The author argues that the Refugee Appeals Board applied an unreasonable burden of proof in assessing his claims. He argues that in its observations, the State party disregards the stress he was under when providing information on the issuance of his passport and who precisely he had given it to during his travel. The author also notes that the Board found his statements to lack credibility, as he could not have been issued with a passport without the authorization of the military. The author argues that in his interviews, he did not mention the date on which the passport was issued to him, but merely the date on which he travelled and that, consequently, it was possible for him to have had the passport issued without military authorization. 5.2 The author reiterates that he does not wish to perform military service, owing to the risk of killing innocent civilians or being killed himself. He submits that by failing to request a verification of the authenticity of the call-up papers he submitted, the State party authorities did not adequately examine his claims. He further submits that by denying his application for asylum, the State party authorities did not take into account his fear of persecution for failure to perform military service and the subsequent risk of imprisonment, torture and forced military service. 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 it 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 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are unsubstantiated. The Committee notes that the author has not provided any information as to why he considers that he would be at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 6 of the Covenant if removed to Egypt. Accordingly, the Committee declares this part of the communication inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 6