CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012 that the competent authorities must ascertain, in the light of the personal circumstances of the person concerned, whether that person, as a result of exercising his or her right to freedom of religion in the country of origin, runs a genuine risk of persecution or outrages justifying asylum. The person concerned would thus have a well-founded fear of persecution or outrages justifying asylum if it might reasonably be expected that, upon his or her return to the country of origin, he or she would engage in religious practices which would expose him or her to a real risk of persecution or outrages justifying asylum. The competent authorities cannot reasonably expect the person concerned to abstain from those religious practices. In that context, the State party refers to the fact that the author of the present communication has not presented any information on her situation which would affect the assessment of her case in light of this ruling. 4.13 As to the author’s claim under article 14 of the Covenant, the State party submits, with reference to the European Court of Human Rights, which has consistently excluded asylum and expulsion proceedings from the scope of application of the similarly-phrased article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in its jurisprudence, that asylum proceedings do not constitute civil rights and obligations and therefore fall outside the scope of article 14 of the Covenant. 4.14 Should the Committee find that asylum proceedings do fall within the scope of article 14 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish that she has been deprived of her right to access to the courts. In that respect, the State party points out that the Refugee Appeals Board is a quasi-judicial body which qualifies as a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Board’s decision was further based on a procedure, during which the author had the opportunity to present her views, both in writing and orally, to the Board with the assistance of legal counsel. The Board conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case. The author has thus been granted access to a hearing as described in article 14 of the Covenant. 4.15 Furthermore, article 14 (5) of the Covenant only applies to criminal cases. The author’s remarks on whether the Refugee Appeals Board handles appeals or not and whether its decisions can be brought before the regular courts are thus, regardless of whether or not asylum proceedings fall within the scope of article 14, immaterial to the case at hand. 4.16 In conclusion, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of her communication under articles 2, 6, 7, 14, 18, 26 and 27 of the Covenant and that the communication is therefore manifestly illfounded and should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party further submits that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the author will be in danger of being subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to China and that the return of the author to China therefore does not constitute a violation of articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. Nor will the author’s rights under articles 2, 14, 18, 26 or 27 be violated, as they are articles which do not in themselves have extraterritorial effect. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In her comments of 27 February 2013 on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits, the author submits that she was held in immigration detention in Denmark from 24 October 2012 until late November 2012 with a view to her being deported to China. The legality of her detention was challenged by the author’s counsel up to the Board of Appeal of the Danish Supreme Court, which, on 6 December 2012, rejected the application for permission to appeal against the administrative detention order upheld by the High Court on 12 November 2012. Since all domestic remedies with regard to her 6