CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014 only received a “scolding”. Later at the hearing before the RAB, the author argued that he was persecuted by the local population. Finally, the RAB found that the author had lied about his travel route, explaining that he had paid an agent and that he had never been issued a passport. The RAB concluded that the author’s explanation of his reasons for seeking asylum could not justify granting asylum. 2.4 The author challenges the alleged inconsistencies found by the RAB in his statements. He admits having forgotten to mention the “night letters” in his asylum application form but notes that he later contacted a representative of the Red Cross and told them that he wished to add that information. The Red Cross representative called the Danish police and was informed that any additional information should be provided during the interview with the DIS.4 The author also notes that, in his hearing before the RAB, he complemented his previous statements regarding the letters saying that three of the “night letters” contained his name as an example of a traitor. With regard to the alleged threats from the Taliban and the local population, the author argues that his statements were not contradictory and that it had been a translation problem, as the author considers “scolding as equivalent to personal threats”. As to the alleged threats from his cousins, the author notes that the fact that he had first referred to “relatives” and later to “cousins” does not constitute any contradiction. Finally, the author notes that giving a false travel route should not be taken as the basis for a rejection of his asylum claim. 2.5 By letter of 4 April 2014, the author requested that the RAB reopen his case. The RAB denied that request by decision of 19 May 2014, stating that the author had not submitted any essential new information. The RAB therefore considered that there was no basis for reopening the proceedings or extending the time limit for the author’s departure. The RAB noted that its decision rejecting the author’s request for asylum had been based on both his personal circumstances as well as background information available to the RAB, including general conditions for interpreters in Afghanistan, and had concluded that the author had failed to render probable that he would be at an actual risk of being subjected to persecution or abuse by the Taliban or other persons solely because of his work as an interpreter for the international forces in the event of his return to Afghanistan. 2.6 The author argues that, since decisions by the Danish RAB are not subject to appeal before national courts according to the Danish Aliens Act, he has exhausted all national domestic remedies available to him. He notes that, in its concluding observations on the seventeenth periodic report of Denmark (CERD/C/DEN/CO/17), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that asylum seekers be granted the right to appeal against decisions of the RAB (see ibid., para. 13). The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his deportation to Afghanistan would place him under severe risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. He claims that, having worked for the United States military forces for five years in different Afghan regions, he is perceived by the Taliban as a traitor and is at risk of assault or abuse both by the Taliban and the local population. The author refers to the report on the DIS fact-finding mission to Kabul to support the statement that 4 4 The author attaches a letter by S.M.E. from the Red Cross, stating that she had assisted the author in his application, and in particular, in calling the police to request how to add information to his application.