CCPR/C/114/D/2343/2014 State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 30 June 2015, the State party submitted additional observations, in which it reiterated its main observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication of 6 August 2014. The State party maintains that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under articles 1, 2, 7, 9 and 19 of the Covenant, and that the communication is therefore manifestly unfounded and should be considered inadmissible. Furthermore, the State party maintains that the part of the communication referring to article 19 should be rejected as inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae, pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The State party also submits that, in case the Committee were to find the communication admissible, it had not been established that there were substantial grounds for believing that the return of the author to Egypt would constitute a violation of articles 1, 2, 7, 9 and 19 of the Covenant. 6.2 In its observations, the State party responds to the author’s comments of 3 September 2014 and adds that the author has maintained that article 1 of the Covenant would be violated if the author is returned to Egypt as he is unable either to seek protection from any parts in Egypt, or to freely determine his political status or to freely pursue his social and cultural development of Ultras Ahlawy in Egypt without risking persecution, torture and/or assassination. The State party observes on this matter that the risk of persecution or other abuse justifying asylum falls within the ambit of article 7 of the Covenant and not article 1. As regards article 1 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author is seeking to apply the obligations under article 1 in an extraterritorial manner in his communication. The author’s allegations of a violation of article 1 of the Covenant do not rest on any treatment that he has suffered in Denmark, and are neither in an area where Danish authorities are in effective control nor owing to the conduct of Danish authorities, but rather on consequences that he will allegedly suffer if returned to Egypt. The State party thereby claims that the Committee accordingly lacks jurisdiction over the relevant violation in respect of Denmark, and this part of the communication is accordingly incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. In the State party’s view, extraditing, deporting, expelling or otherwise removing a person who is in fear of having his or her rights under, for example, article 1 of the Covenant violated by another State party will therefore not cause such irreparable harm as is 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 rejected as inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae, pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 As regards the author’s submission, in relation to articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, that the background material of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board on Egypt had not been updated, the State party reiterates its observations of 6 August 2014. Accordingly, the State party maintains that the assertion that the background material was not sufficiently updated when the Board made its decision it is not correct. 6.4 As regards the information provided by the author on other named individuals who had been involved in other fan clubs in Egypt, the State party submits that the Board makes an individual and specific assessment in all asylum proceedings. Furthermore, it claims that the author’s information on other named individuals is of no significance to the author’s application for asylum as the author has failed to substantiate that he has been or will be subjected to abuse that would justify asylum in case of his return to Egypt. As regards the author’s submission concerning interpretation, the State party observes that, when interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service, the author was guided about his duty to speak out if he experienced any interpreting problems. The report was also read out to the author after the interview, and the author made comments on the report and confirmed that he had understood everything said by the interpreter during the interview. The State party 9