CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014 4.8 Finally, the State party notes that the RAB found that the reasons given by the author for having provided a false travel route were unconvincing. 4.9 The State party argues that the author is attempting to use the Committee as an appellate body and to have the facts of the case reassessed by the Committee. The State party notes that the Committee should give due weight to the findings of fact by the RAB, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances in the author’s case. 4.10 The State party adds that the RAB assigns free counsel to support asylum seekers in their claims, and that proceedings before the RAB include an oral hearing with the asylum seeker, their counsel and an interpreter, as well as a representative of the DIS. 4.11 The State party informs the Committee that, following the Committee’s request for interim measures, the RAB suspended the time limit for the author’s departure from Denmark until further notice. Based on all the above, the State party requests that the Committee review its request for interim measures. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 27 March 2015, the author submits his comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits. The author notes that the State party has not provided any new information that would justify that the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures review his decision to grant interim measures. 5.2 The author punctuates that the decision by the RAB was adopted by a majority of its members and that therefore not all of its members agreed with the decision. 5.3 The author challenges the State party’s statement that the author had written in his application that his relatives had received threats, and states that in fact he wrote that he had received threats from these relatives. 5.4 With regard to the “night letters”, the author insists that he had not provided conflicting statements. He notes that it was only three days after having submitted his asylum application form, after he had participated in a course at the asylum centre, that he learned that the information contained in the form was confidential and that it was at that moment that he had contacted the Red Cross and requested assistance to include important information that he had left out of the application. The author adds that information provided to the police during questioning cannot be used as reliable evidence. The author notes that, in two letters by United States officials in Afghanistan (attached to the author’s initial communication), they confirm that the author and his family “faced numerous threats … as a result of his employment with the US and International Security Assistance Forces” and the author had “received credible threats via night letters from the Taliban” on at least three occasions. 5.5 The author notes that the English translation “Refugee Appeals Board” is not precise as the RAB is in fact an administrative body — not a court — and its procedures do not require a legal counsel to assist the asylum seeker, its meetings are closed, witnesses are not allowed except under very limited circumstances, interpreters are not required to have any specific training, and one out of the five members of the Board is appointed by the Ministry of Justice. Additionally, its decisions are not subject to appeal before national courts. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7