CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 submits that asylum proceedings fall outside the scope of article 14 of the Covenant, and that this part of the communication should therefore be considered inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.5 The State party further submits that it follows from section 48 of the rules of procedure of the Refugee Appeals Board that the chair of the individual board, a legal judge, will decide on the matter of reopening of an asylum case when, according to the contents of the request for reopening, there is no reason to assume that the Board will change its decision. 8 Accordingly, it was the Chair of the Board that first heard the case who approved the relevant decision and not the staff member who formally signed it. Against that background, the State party rejects the author’s claim that article 14 of the Covenant was violated when his request for reopening the asylum proceedings was examined. 4.6 The State party further submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his claims under article 18 of the Covenant, because it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that his rights in that regard have been violated. Thus, this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible. 4.7 The State party also observes that the author is seeking to apply the obligations under article 18 in an extraterritorial manner. In particular, he makes no allegations of violations of article 18 that are based on treatment that he has suffered in Denmark, or in an area where the Danish authorities are in effective control, or is due to the conduct of Danish authorities. The Committee accordingly lacks jurisdiction over the relevant violation in respect of Denmark and this part of the communication is thus also incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The State party submits that Denmark cannot be held responsible for violations of article 18 alleged to be committed by another State party outside the territory and jurisdiction of Denmark. It adds in this regard that the European Court of Human Rights has clearly stressed in its case law the exceptional character of extraterritorial protection of the rights contained in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.9 4.8 The State party recalls that, similarly the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee has found on a number of occasions that the deportation of persons by States parties to other States that would result in a foreseeable breach of their right to life or their freedom from torture would entail a violation of their Covenant rights. However, the Committee has never considered a complaint on its merits regarding the deportation of a person who feared violation of other provisions than articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant in the receiving State. In the State party’s view, extraditing, deporting, expelling or otherwise removing a person who fears having his rights under, for example, article 18 of the Covenant violated by another State party will not cause such irreparable harm as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. For those reasons, the State party submits that this part of the communication should also be declared inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae, pursuant to rule 99 (d), read together with rule 99 (a) of the Committee’s rules of procedure and article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.9 As to the author’s claims under article 26 of the Covenant (see para. 3.4 above), the State party submits he has been treated no differently from any other person applying for asylum in terms of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Since the author has not elaborated any further on the circumstances on which this part of the communication is based, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility with respect to the alleged violation of article 26 of the Covenant, because it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the author has 8 9 See Executive Order No. 1651 of 27 December 2013 on rules of procedure for the Refugee Appeals Board. See judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Soering v. the United Kingdom (application No. 14038/88), 7 July 1989, para. 88. See also the decisions of the Court in F v. the United Kingdom (application No. 17341/03), 22 June 2004, and Z and T v. the United Kingdom (application No. 27034/05), 28 February 2006. 7