CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014 circumstances of the submission of the documents and the credibility of the asylum seeker’s statements in the light of the general background information available on conditions in the country. The Board observed that the contents of a document were not necessarily true even though the document was genuine. 12 8.5 The State party reiterates that the author’s claim that his rights under article 26 of the Covenant have been violated because he cannot appeal the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board before courts, is manifestly unsubstantiated. The author has been treated no differently than any other person applying for asylum. Pursuant to section 56 (8) of the Aliens Act, the decisions of the Board are final and cannot be appealed. By virtue of the Danish Constitution, aliens may, however, bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, which have the authority to adjudicate any matter concerning the limits to the competence of a public authority. From the author 9. On 10 July 2017, the author reiterated his allegations and pointed out that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 15 September 2016 had not included any issue related to his request to present a witness at his hearing, and did not explain why the case had not been referred to the Danish Immigration Service. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claims 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 to the Covenant. 10.2 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. 10.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s assertion that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 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. 10.4 The Committee takes notes of the author’s claims under articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant that he requested unsuccessfully that the Refugee Appeals Board remit his case to the Danish Immigration Service since his conversion to Christianity was a new asylum motive; and that the Board, without providing any explanation, also rejected his requests to present a witness at the hearing and to carry out an investigation to determine if the documents provided in support of his initial asylum procedure were false. The author further claims that Danish law does not allow the Board’s decisions to be appealed before courts, which he considers discriminatory. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that the author’s asylum proceedings, including his request that his case be reopened, were conducted in conformity with Danish law; that the author had been able to submit evidence and clarify his statements in the original asylum procedure and after the case had been reopened by the Board; that, in the light of the information already submitted by the author and the circumstances of the case, the Board had not granted the author’s request to present T.H. as witness and to request that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs carry out an investigation as to the authenticity of some documents submitted by him (see paragraphs 8.3-8.4 above); that the Board is an independent, expert board of a quasijudicial nature, whose Chair is a judge, and that it is under the obligation to bring out the facts and make objectively correct decisions. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the author had been treated no differently than any other person applying for asylum. 12 8 The State party refers to Country of Origin Information (footnote 17 above), pp. 50-51.