CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 Committee refers to its jurisprudence, according to which this provision offers asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal to judicial bodies.17 The Committee therefore concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate this particular claim under article 13 of the Covenant, and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.8 The Committee further notes that the author also claimed a violation of articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant, since the decision of 6 February 2014 refusing to reopen his asylum proceedings was made by the secretariat of the Refugee Appeals, with the approval of the Chair, and not by the Board itself. 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 and that he had been treated no differently than any other person applying for asylum. The Committee observes that the author had the opportunity to submit and challenge evidence concerning his forcible removal to Afghanistan and had his asylum application examined by the Danish Immigration Service, reviewed by the Board and reviewed twice by the Chair of the Board, who, inter alia, examined the new sur place grounds for granting asylum and the evidence submitted by the author. The Committee considers, therefore, that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims concerning the procedure before the Board under articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant for purposes of admissibility and that this part of the communication must therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.9 Finally, the Committee notes that the author has invoked a violation of article 18 of the Covenant, without however providing any information, evidence or explanation as to how his rights under this article would be violated by the State party through his removal to Afghanistan. The Committee therefore concludes that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 17 14 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol; (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. See, for example, Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013), para. 6.4, and S.Z. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015), para. 7.12. See also, the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62.