CCPR/C/122/D/2595/2015 years of imprisonment for failure to perform his military service. He further claims that he would be at risk of torture and forced military service. 1 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 9 October 2015, the State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure for failure to substantiate the claims for the purposes of admissibility. In the alternative, should the Committee find the communication to be admissible, the State party submits that the complaint is without merit. 4.2 The State party provides a detailed description of the asylum proceedings under the Danish Aliens Act and of the organization and competence of the Refugee Appeals Board. 2 Decisions of the Board are based on an individual and specific assessment of the relevant case. The asylum seeker’s statements regarding his or her grounds for seeking asylum are assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, including what is known about conditions in the country of origin. The Board is responsible not only for examining and bringing out information on the specific facts of the case, but also for providing necessary background material, including information on the situation in the asylum seeker’s country of origin or first country of asylum.3 4.3 The State party observes that the author has not provided any new information on his situation since information was provided on 4 March 2015, when the Refugee Appeals Board decided the appeal. It notes that, in its decision, the Board rejected in its entirety the author’s claim that he was wanted by the authorities owing to his evasion of military service or to a suspicion that he had carried out activities for the Muslim Brotherhood, and that he had been threatened by the Muslim Brotherhood because he had refused to join the organization. It notes that the Board assessed that the author had failed to substantiate his grounds for asylum, since he had made vague and inconsistent statements on several points relating to events in his country of origin, and elements of his statements were inconsistent with the background information on the situation in Egypt or otherwise appeared to be fabricated or unlikely. 4.4 Regarding the inconsistencies in the author’s statements, the State party refers to the author’s assertion that, prior to his first departure from Egypt, he hid in the mountains until his departure, while he later said that he had lived both in the mountains and with a friend or friends. The State party further notes that, in interviews conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 3 February 2014 and 5 May 2014, the author stated that he had left Egypt in March 2011, while at the hearing of the appeal before the Refugee Appeals Board on 4 March 2015, he stated that he had left Egypt in January 2011. It also notes that, at the interview conducted on 3 February 2014, the author stated that he had handed over his passport to the Italian authorities when applying for asylum in Italy and that the passport had not been returned to him, while at the hearing of the appeal before the Refugee Appeals Board, he stated that he had handed over his passport to a human trafficker in Libya when leaving Egypt in 2011 and that the trafficker had not returned the passport to him. The State party also notes that, at the interview on 5 May 2014, the author stated that he had managed to avoid immigration control by bribing an employee and leaving the airport through a side door into the baggage reclaim area, while at the interview on 25 June 2014, he stated that the employee had taken him into an area where passengers were waiting for their flight. The State party further notes that, at the interview conducted on 3 February 2014, the author stated that he had not brought any travel documents with him from Italy to Egypt. However, at the interview conducted on 5 May 2014, he stated that he had been given a travel document when landing in Cairo, while at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals 1 2 3 4 No further information or argumentation has been provided. The author does not raise the claim presented before the domestic authorities that he fears being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, or fears retaliation from them. See Hussein Ahmed et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3; and A.S.G.M v. Denmark (CCPR/C/121/D/2612/2015), para. 4.2. The State party indicates that background material on Egypt available to the Refugee Appeals Board can be found at www.fln.dk/da/baggrundsmateriale.