CCPR/C/114/D/2343/2014 a photograph of the house search. Further to that, the author’s mother received a written death threat addressed to the author. 6 2.8 The author considers that, as no judicial review of the Board’s decision is available, all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The author’s communication is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that, by forcibly returning him to Egypt, Denmark would violate his rights under articles 1, 2, 7, 9 and 19 of the Covenant. He claims that he fears facing a considerable risk of being arrested, kidnapped, tortured and even killed as he is a wellknown member and founder of the Ultras Ahlawy club, and also owing to the club’s political agenda. The author’s fears are linked to the fact that he has personally campaigned for a different political party than the current Government and has expressed opinions against its authoritarian methods, which have been widely disseminated in various online media and social media networks. He adds that his capacity to mobilize people against the authorities has been considered as a threat by all the regimes, including by the current one. 3.2 He also alleges that, in the light of the human rights situation in Egypt, he cannot be protected from the authorities there, and faces the risk of being arrested without a proper reason, kidnapped, tortured or even killed by the State party’s security forces upon his arrival, owing to his political opinions, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Covenant. In particular, the author refers to international non-governmental organization reports on the situation in Egypt, that the police and military have used excessive lethal force and have killed or arrested thousands of political opponents to the Government and military, and that the current authorities are using all possible means to silence political opposition. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 6 August 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and merits of the communication. It considers that the author has failed to substantiate a risk of irreparable harm if returned to Egypt, and for the same reasons considers the communication inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded due to a lack of substantiation. 4.2 Regarding his claims under articles 1 and 2, the State party submits that the author “has not elaborated in any way on the circumstances on which this part of the communication is based”. Regarding his claims under articles 7 and 9, it is the State party’s views that the author is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to re-evaluate the facts and circumstances of the asylum claim that was adjudicated by national authorities. The State party requests the Committee to give considerable weight to the factual findings of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, which found that the author had failed to substantiate that he would risk persecution by the Muslim Brotherhood, or that he would be in a position of conflict relevant under asylum law vis-à-vis the military, police security forces or other authorities in case of his return to Egypt. Furthermore, the State party pointed out that the Board considered that neither the author nor his family had been contacted by the authorities. Moreover, the information on the arrests of other members of Ultras Ahlawy in connection with disturbances at an airport was also, in itself, found not to indicate any risk of persecution of the author. Accordingly, the Board found no basis for giving the applicant Convention status under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act or protection status under section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. 6 A copy of the note in Arabic was submitted, which contained a death threat as the author was qualified as “traitor”. 5