CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014 do not rest on any treatment that he has suffered in Denmark, or in an area where Danish authorities are in effective control, but rather on consequences that he will allegedly suffer if he is returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee accordingly lacks jurisdiction over the relevant violations in respect of Denmark, and this part of the communication is thus incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The State party points out that, under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has competence to receive and consider communications from individuals who are subject to the jurisdiction of a State party who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant committed by that State Party. Furthermore, extraditing, deporting, expelling or otherwise removing a person who is in fear of having his rights violated by another State — for example, his rights under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant — will not cause such irreparable harm as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 7 Accordingly, the State party submits that this part of the communication should be rejected as inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae pursuant to rule 96 (d) of the Committee’s rules of procedure read together with rule 96 (a) of the Committee’s rules of procedure and article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.5 If the Committee considers the author’s communication to be admissible, the State party maintains that this would not disclose a violation of the Covenant. The State party submits that the author is, in fact, trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances that have been advocated in support of his claim for asylum reassessed, and that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the findings of fact in the author’s case. 4.6 The State party reiterates the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board, considering the author’s account to be unlikely. In addition, the State party refers to the author’s statement, when interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service on 27 August 2009, that he found it very risky to distribute the flyers. Nevertheless, according to his own statement, he left a book with a flyer on a table in the classroom, which was freely accessible to his teachers and classmates. The State party considers that the author’s statement about his carelessness with the flyers, even though he considered the task of distributing them a very risky one, is inexplicable and contradictory. No matter whether the author had used the flyer as a bookmark or had forgotten about the flyer in the book, his actions amounted to incautious handling of the flyers. Correspondingly, it does not matter whether the author had driven to school in his own car or whether he had gone by taxi and walked the last ten minutes. 4.7 The State party refers to the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board in respect of the letter from the French branch of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran, the author’s tattoo and his Facebook activities. It maintains that the Board included all the relevant information in its decisions, and that there is no basis for doubting or setting aside the Board’s assessment that the author has not established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be at risk of being subjected to persecution if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.8 The State party observes that even though the Danish police may present the author before the Iranian authorities at the airport, such a procedure in itself cannot justify asylum. The information that the author has applied for asylum in Denmark and that the application has been refused is confidential; for that reason, it cannot be assumed that the Iranian authorities are familiar with this information. 7 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. 7