CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 forced to fight for either the Government or the Taliban and that he also risks being sexually abused.4 The author adds that he cannot seek protection from his family and that he belongs to an ethnic minority group of Hazaras. In the light of the foregoing, the author submits that he risks being persecuted and killed like his father. 3.3 The author also claims that, pursuant to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines and contrary to the assessment by the Refugee Appeals Board in its decisions of 6 February 2013 and 6 February 2014, he needs international protection. Furthermore, the Guidelines make it clear that numerous factors should be taken into account in the evaluation of the availability of internal flight or relocation alternatives in Afghanistan. In that connection, the author submits that the Board’s failure to take those factors into consideration in taking its decisions of 6 February 2013 and 6 February 2014 and in maintaining the initial order, obliging the author to leave Denmark, constitutes a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 3.4 The author also submits that his rights under article 14 of the Covenant have been violated, since a decision on his asylum application taken by the Board under the administrative procedure could not be appealed to a judicial body (see CERD/C/DEN/CO/17, para. 13). For him, this also raises the question of discrimination under article 26 of the Covenant, since under the State party’s law, decisions of a great number of administrative boards that have the same composition as the Refugee Appeals Board, can be appealed before the ordinary courts. The author also argues that his new sur place grounds for being granted asylum, namely his conversion to Christianity while in Denmark, was only examined and dismissed by a person who was part of the Board secretariat, with the approval of the Chair of the Board. It was not therefore the Board as such that made the decision to reject the Danish Refugee Council’s request to reopen his asylum proceedings. 3.5 In his subsequent submission of 9 February 2016, counsel informed the Committee that the author was claiming a violation of article 13 instead of article 14 of the Covenant. He argued, in particular, that the author’s risk of persecution and suffering of irreparable harm upon if he was removed to Afghanistan had not been assessed in accordance with the procedural guarantees of this article, since he was unable to appeal the Board’s decisions to a judicial body. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 11 August 2014, the State party submitted that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the State party submits that no provisions of the Covenant would be violated if the author were deported to Afghanistan. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board, which it considers to be an independent and quasi-judicial body,5 and the legal basis of its decisions.6 4.3 As to the admissibility of the communication, the State party argues that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility with respect to the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, since it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being deprived of his life or subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he was removed to Afghanistan. This part of the communication is therefore manifestly illfounded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.4 The State party recalls that article 14 of the Covenant lays down the principle of due process, including the right to have access to the courts in the determination of a person’s rights and obligations in a suit at law. It follows from the Committee’s jurisprudence that proceedings relating to the expulsion of an alien do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1), but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant.7 Against that background, the State party 4 5 6 7 6 No further details provided by the author. See Ahmed et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. Aliens Act, sections 7 (1)–(2) and 31 (1)–(2). X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 8.5.