CCPR/C/122/D/2642/2015 accused of committing two crimes, including the killing of a professor, could not be considered as genuine according to a memorandum of the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 30 August 2013. The Committee also notes the author’s allegation that he has never seen such a document and that he is not aware of the way in which the Ministry conducted the verification of the documents. The Committee, however, notes that the information available in the file does not enable it to conclude that the author requested at any point to have access to the memorandum, or would have asked for any clarifications as to the way it was produced. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of the domestic authorities, specifically the Refugee Appeals Board, as that body is best placed to assess the facts in the author’s case. 8.6 The Committee also notes the author’s allegation that, during the asylum proceedings, he had difficulty concentrating and putting facts in chronological order owing to trauma, and notes his objections to the way in which the interviews were conducted and the problems he faced with regard to the interpretation services. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author agreed with and signed the reports of the interviews conducted during the asylum proceedings after they were read out to him, and that one of those reports signed by the author expressly indicated that he had not had any problems with the interpretation services. The Committee further observes that the author has not provided any evidence to support his allegation that the inconsistencies reflected during the asylum proceedings were due to trauma. It also observes that he has not provided any replies to State party’s argument that he had never mentioned any problems with the interviewing method or the interpretation services during the asylum proceedings, and that he had signed the reports of the interviews. The Committee further observes that the author has not pointed to any procedural irregularities in the decision-making procedure by the Danish Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board, and therefore considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the Board, he has failed to show that they were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous or amounted to a denial of justice. 31 8.7 In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author would face a personal and real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in case of his return to Bangladesh. 8.8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s deportation to Bangladesh, if implemented, would not violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 31 12 See, inter alia, Y v. Canada (CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013), para. 7.6.