CCPR/C/116/D/2357/2014 5.3 The author is illiterate and has presented evidence to the Danish authorities to substantiate his claims. In its observations, the State party raised new concerns that had not been raised during domestic proceedings (regarding the persons who owned and lived in the house in Zari, the countries visited by Q and the date around which the author’s brother arrived at the scene of the fight). These new issues are insignificant compared to the thorough and detailed explanation the author provided in his interview with the Danish Immigration Service. Moreover, minor inconsistencies can hardly be avoided. State party’s further observations 6.1 In its submission dated 25 June 2015, the State party considers that domestic authorities are best placed to evaluate facts and the credibility of witnesses, whom they have an opportunity to see, hear and assess. 5 The State party reiterates its arguments with regard to the admissibility and merits of the communication. 6.2 The author’s claim under article 13 of the Covenant is manifestly ill-founded and is therefore inadmissible. Article 13 does not confer a right to a court hearing. The Committee’s jurisprudence indicates that mere administrative review of an expulsion order is not per se a violation of article 13.6 Concerning the author’s criticism that the interpreters servicing asylum proceedings are not required to meet specific educational requirements, the Board uses interpreters recorded on the list of approved interpreters kept by the Danish National Police. During asylum proceedings, asylum seekers are instructed to speak out if they experience any problems with the interpretation. Applicants and interpreters are asked at the outset of the proceedings if they understand one another. At the end of each interview with the Danish Immigration Service, an interview report is read out to the applicant, who then has the opportunity to comment on the contents of the report. At the hearing before the Board, the applicant is normally represented by counsel, who is also given the opportunity to make objections to the interpretation. Thus, the fact that individual interpreters are not subject to educational requirements does not constitute a breach of the right to a fair trial. Interpreters’ competence is assessed on a case-by-case basis and, if it is considered inadequate, the interview or hearing is adjourned and another interpreter is retained. Both the Service and the Board give “the utmost priority to ensuring a high standard” of interpretation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee also notes that it is undisputed that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that Q’s brothers, who murdered the author’s father and brother in the context of a land dispute, would torture or kill him in Afghanistan in order to silence him as a witness to the murders and in order to illegally 5 6 6 The State party cites, inter alia, communication No. 2186/2012, Mr. X and Mrs. X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5; European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden, Application No. 41827/07, judgment of 9 March 2010, para. 52. The State party cites communication No. 58/1979, Maroufidou v. Sweden, Views adopted on 9 April 1981.