CCPR/C/119/D/2338/2014 against asylum seekers, since all other decisions by administrative bodies can be appealed before courts pursuant to the State party’s law. It also notes the State party’s statement that the author has been treated equally to any person applying for asylum before its authorities, whatever their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The Committee observes that the author has not provided any further arguments on this part of the complaint, and therefore considers that he has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 26 and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.39 6.9 The Committee further notes the author’s claims that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are the only decisions that are final without possibility of appeal before the national courts; that the Board lacks impartiality and independence and that therefore the request to reopen the case should have been decided by the Danish Immigration Service and not by the Board, taking into account that the latter had already rejected a request submitted by the author to reopen the case on the grounds of his conversion to Christianity. The Committee also notes the author’s submission that the Board refused to receive the testimony of his friend without providing any legal reasoning, and that the State party has thus violated the author’s rights under article 14 of the Covenant. In that regard, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to aliens’ expulsion do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1) but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 40 Furthermore, the latter provision offers to asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal to judicial courts. 41 The Committee therefore concludes that this claim is inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee also considers that even if the author had invoked article 13 of the Covenant, his claims on this issue are insufficiently substantiated. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 39 40 41 10 See, for example, communication No. 2115/2011, I.A.K. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 November 2016, para. 9.7. See, for example, communication No. 2291/2013, A and B v. Denmark, Views adopted on 13 July 2016, para. 7.3; X v. Denmark, para. 8.5. See communication No. 2288/2013, Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark, Views adopted on 23 July 2015, para. 6.4; general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62.