CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012 different assessment of the evidence on whether the incident of April 2006 occurred than the one made by the Board on 29 April 2008. The Refugee Board found that the authors have not provided evidence that the episode had occurred. With the same decision, the authors were ordered to leave Denmark within seven days. The authors did not comply. They submit that they could have been summoned for deportation to the Russian Federation at any time since then. While the Danish police are not in possession of the authors’ passports, the latter maintain that any approach to the Russian Embassy in Copenhagen in preparation for deportation would reveal their whereabouts to their persecutors in Karachay-Cherkessia. The authors fear that they will be exposed to torture and/or killed by their Wahhabi persecutors and that the police in the Russian Federation will not be able to protect them. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that, by deporting them to the Russian Federation, the State party will violate their right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture that are guaranteed, respectively, under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors further invoke a violation of articles 14 and 26 of the Covenant, because the decisions of all other types of boards in Denmark, except for the Refugee Board, can be appealed to the State party’s courts. Decisions of the Refugee Board are the only ones that become final without a possibility of being appealed to courts, which is discriminatory, in the authors’ opinion, against those foreigners who are seeking asylum in Denmark. 4 They add that the consequences in refugee cases, such as possible exposure to torture and death, are far more significant than the consequences of decisions made by any other types of boards in Denmark. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication 4.1 In its submission dated 11 February 2013, the State party provided observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. 4.2 The State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the authors have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of their communication under articles 6, 7, 14 and 26 of the Covenant. 4.3 The State party submits that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board of 29 April 2008 and 15 June 2012 were made upon an individual and specific assessment taking into consideration the background information available. The Refugee Appeals Board has accepted Mr. X’s statements about his conflicts with the militants in the period from 1998 to 2003, including the killing of his father by the militants in 1998, and the contacts made by the militants with him in 1999 and in 2003, when they tried in vain to recruit him. However, the Refugee Appeals Board was unable to accept Mr. X’s statements about the visits made by the militants in April 2006 as the authors have not been able to account credibly and consistently for the reason why the militants would have told him about their planned terrorist acts. The Refugee Appeals Board noted that the authors have given inconsistent statements about the contact made by the militants in April 2006, including the 4 6 Reference is made to the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the consideration of the combined sixteenth and seventeenth periodic reports of Denmark (CERD/C/DEN/CO/17, para. 13): “The Committee notes with concern that decisions by the Refugee Board on asylum requests are final and may not be appealed before a court […] The Committee recommends that asylum seekers be granted the right to appeal against the Refugee Board’s decisions.”