CCPR/C/119/D/2338/2014 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board18 and the legislation applying to asylum proceedings.19 It indicates that the Board analyses whether an asylum applicant may fear being subjected to specific and individual persecution or to a risk in case of return to his or her country of origin, taking into account any information on persecution prior to the asylum seeker’s departure from his or her country of origin (sect. 7 (1) of the Aliens Act). In addition, the State party indicates that a residence permit may be issued to an alien who risks being subjected to the death penalty or to torture or ill-treatment if returned to his or her country of origin. The State party also indicates that the Board considers the conditions for issuing a residence permit fulfilled if there are specific and individual factors rendering it probable that the asylum seeker will be exposed to a real risk of death or of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment in case of return (sect. 7 (2) of the Aliens Act). 4.3 Regarding the admissibility of the communication, the State party indicates that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for admissibility purposes regarding the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, as he has not substantiated that he would face any risk or danger to his life or any risk of being subjected to torture or illtreatment if deported to Afghanistan; therefore his allegations under these provisions should be considered ill-founded. With respect to the author’s allegations under article 14 of the Covenant, the State party submits that according to the Committee’s case law, article 14 (1) does not apply to proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens from a State party and that the relevant provision of the Covenant is article 13. Therefore, it indicates that this claim should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae. 4.4 Concerning the author’s claim that article 18 of the Covenant has been violated, the State party indicates that he has not explained how this provision has been breached in his case, and considers that he has failed to establish a prima facie case for admissibility purposes in that regard. With respect to article 26 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author has been treated equally to any person applying for asylum within the State party, whatever their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Since the author has not elaborated on this part of the complaint, he has failed to establish a prima facie case for admissibility purposes regarding this provision of the Covenant. 4.5 On the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish that his return to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of articles 6, 7, 18 and 26 of the Covenant. Regarding articles 6 and 7, the State party indicates that its obligations under such provisions are reflected in section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, which establishes that a permit will be issued to an alien if he or she risks being subjected to the death penalty or to torture or ill-treatment in his or her country of origin. The State party recalls that according to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board dated 31 January 2013, the author made incoherent and inconsistent statements regarding his asylum grounds, in particular his relationship with his spouse and the circumstances that motivated his departure from Afghanistan. The Board found that he had failed to establish that he would face any risk to his life or of being subjected to torture if returned to Afghanistan and therefore rejected his asylum claim. The State party further indicates that the author’s interest in Christianity or religion was not mentioned during his interview with the Danish Immigration Service, nor was it mentioned during the first hearing before the Board, held on 31 January 2013. The State party also notes that the author only requested the reopening of his case the day before he was going to be detained to be deported, and that only then did he mention that he had converted to Christianity and provide a baptism certificate. The State party further submits that this behaviour contradicts the author’s statement that he had been interested in Christianity since the beginning of 2012.20 The State party also indicates that the ministers’ statements confirming the author’s church activities were issued only 18 19 20 See communication 2379/2014, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.1-4.3. The State party refers to sections 7 (1) and (2) and 31 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act. See para. 2.5 above. 5