CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014 his interest in Christianity. There is now very little contact between the author and his family, since neither of them want to talk to each other. This is partly due to the author’s interest in Christianity, and partly because they believe that the author’s aggression towards the neighbour’s son is the reason for the family’s misfortune (annex 2). The author’s counsel also objects to the Immigration Service’s conclusion that the author’s land dispute was not current and relevant, as the author reportedly stated that his neighbour had taken possession of that land and was now cultivating it – a conclusion that he perceives as being devoid of any empathy for the applicant, who at the age of 14 or 15, and as the oldest son of a widow, was stripped of his and his family’s livelihood by a powerful and ruthless neighbour. 5.7 Referring to the UNHCR background materials, the counsel argues that the author will be at risk of persecution, torture, or risk to his life, if removed, due to his young age and his ethnicity. He should therefore be entitled to asylum under the Aliens Act, article 7, paragraphs 1 or 2. As concerns the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision, none of the author’s statements made during the Board’s hearing can be taken as lacking in honesty; the author admitted from the outset that his knowledge of Christianity was limited, but stated that his wish to learn more about it was great, in spite of language barriers. It is likewise evident that the author denounces the kind of Islam that he experienced in Afghanistan. 5.8 As regards the national asylum proceedings, the counsel objects that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be appealed to the ordinary Danish courts, as stipulated in the Aliens Act (art. 56, sect. 8), which can be seen as a breach of the right to appeal enshrined in the Constitution of Denmark (art. 63). Moreover, the proceedings of the Refugee Appeals Board, as a quasi-judicial body, lack many of the attributes of judicial proceedings: the meetings are not open to the public, witnesses are not allowed, except in exceptional circumstances, and one member of the five-member Board is appointed by the ministry that is the superior authority to the Immigration Service, resulting in a lack of neutrality. Another issue is the lack of specific translation or language education requirements for the interpreters used by the Immigration Service and the Board, and the absence of audio recordings of asylum interviews. There is no requirement to use highly educated interpreters, such as from Afghanistan, who are not regularly used, neither in the present case nor in other asylum cases for Dari- and Pashto-speaking applicants. Those weaknesses in the Danish asylum system make it important that the principle of the benefit of the doubt be invoked in favour of the asylum seeker’s credibility. 5.9 The counsel maintains his previous submissions, and reiterates the request for interim measures so that the State party can ensure protection of the author by returning him to Denmark while the consideration of the communication remains pending. 5.10 Furthermore, the counsel claims that, following his removal to Afghanistan, the author has been living in great fear of being killed. In reference to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Z and T v. United Kingdom (application No. 27034/05), in which the Court stated that the contracting parties could not serve as “indirect guarantors of freedom of worship for the rest of the world”, the counsel reiterates that the author will not be able to practise his religion in Afghanistan in the same manner as he did in Europe, without risking his life if his conversion becomes known. Thus, he is deprived of any form of worship except by way of private prayers. The counsel adds that an outdated method was used to assess the author’s age. In light of the above, the communication should be declared admissible. 5.11 Finally, the counsel reiterates that, given the fact that the author and his family had a land dispute with their powerful neighbour, that the author consequently hit the neighbour’s son, and experienced hostility and rape which made him reject Islam, and that he became a genuine Christian, the Refugee Appeals Board should have considered the extreme dangers of returning a Christian convert to Afghanistan, even though he had not yet been baptized at the time. In conclusion, he maintains that articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant have been violated by Denmark, due to the author’s removal to Afghanistan. 7