CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 take a decision on the matter. 10 The lack of possibility for the author to prove in the framework of a new oral hearing before the Board that his conversion to Christianity was genuine, constitutes a separate violation of article 13 of the Covenant. 5.4 The author’s counsel also argues that the lack of possibility for the author to appeal against the rejection of his new sur place grounds for being granted asylum also amounts to discrimination under article 26 of the Covenant. He submits, in particular, that in the entire Danish administrative system only new sur place grounds are examined by the Board as the first and only instance of the asylum proceeding and that the Board’s negative decisions could only be appealed to the United Nations treaty bodies or to the European Court of Human Rights. 5.5 The author’s counsel submits that the security situation in Afghanistan is extremely dangerous. He recalls in that regard the author’s references to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines (see paras. 3.2–3.3). In addition, he refers to the interview with the Minister for Refugees and Repatriation of Afghanistan published on 21 February 2015.11 In that interview, the Minister appealed to European countries to halt deportations to Afghanistan. The Minister specifically stated that they “should not deport anyone because we cannot take care of them here”. He explained that memorandums of understanding signed by Afghanistan with some European countries in 2011 “clearly stated that those refugees who [were] coming from dangerous provinces [would] not be returned”. According to the Minister, most of those currently being returned came from “very dangerous” provinces and could not go back to them. The Minister observed that the 7 million Afghans who were living in exile could not all be resettled in Kabul, which was considered to be safe by the deporting countries. 5.6 The author’s counsel argues in that connection that so-called non-believers are persecuted even in Kabul. Furthermore, Afghans from unsafe areas can no longer expect to be resettled in Kabul owing to the great number of Afghan returnees taking up residence in that city. The author’s life is therefore constantly in danger because of his conversion to Christianity and the decisions of the Danish asylum authorities not to reopen his asylum proceedings constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 5.7 The counsel maintains that the author’s claims under articles 6, 7, 13, 18 and 26 of the Covenant should be declared admissible because he did not receive a fair trial with regard to his conversion to Christianity and his fear of persecution due to his new sur place grounds for being granted asylum. Since the author could not appeal the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 6 February 2014 to any other body in Denmark, it constitutes a violation of articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Board’s decision of 6 February 2014, as such, has resulted in a violation of the author’s rights under articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 17 May 2016, the State party provided additional observations to the Committee and stated that the submission by the author’s counsel of 9 February 2016 had not provided any essential new or specific information on the author’s personal situation. The State party therefore generally refers to its observations of 11 August 2014. 6.2 Furthermore, the State party observes that, in his initial submission to the Committee, the author claimed that Denmark had also violated article 14 of the Covenant. In that respect, the State party submitted in its observations of 11 August 2014 that asylum proceedings fell outside the scope of that article. The State party notes that the author’s counsel has subsequently invoked a violation of article 13 of the Covenant, owing to the impossibility of appealing the rejection by the Refugee Appeals Board of the request to reopen the author’s asylum proceedings before a court. He also claimed a violation of articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant, since the decision of 6 February 2014 refusing to reopen the author’s asylum 10 11 10 According to the author’s counsel, as of 12 January 2012, the Danish Immigration Service is precluded from receiving requests for reopening asylum proceedings after a decision is taken by the Refugee Appeals Board. Available at https://kabulblogs.wordpress.com/2015/02/21/afghan-minister-for-refugees-andrepatriation-stop-deportation-to-afghanistan/.