CCPR/C/133/D/2458/2014 Advance unedited version this regard that the author has not established any connection between the author’s case and the cases mentioned in the memorandum. The State party further observes that the Police returned the author to Afghanistan on 28 February 2017, and that the Afghan authorities accepted to receive the author. 7.9 The State party takes note of the fact that, according to information submitted in the author’s additional comments of 19 November 2018, the author has left Afghanistan and entered Turkey. The State party reiterates that the author has not submitted any information about his personal situation in general or on any alleged persecution after his return to Afghanistan. The State party does not consider the fact that the author has since left Afghanistan to establish grounds to believe that the author is at real risk of persecution and abuse in Afghanistan. 7.10 The State party maintains that the communication should be considered inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the Government holds that there has been no violation of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2)(b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author. 32 The Committee notes that the author unsuccessfully appealed against the negative asylum decision to the Refugee Appeals Board, and that the State party does not challenge the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author. Therefore, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication by article 5 (2)(b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims that his right to a fair trial and access to a court were violated since a witness in his support was not invited to an oral hearing during the asylum procedure, and the request for attestation of employment was not sought from the IMS, that he suffered discrimination as an asylum seeker because the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are the only decisions that become final without the possibility of being appealed against in courts, and that the State party has thus violated articles 2, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant. In that regard, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14, but are governed by article 13, of the Covenant.33 Article 13 of the Covenant offers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but does not itself protect the right of appeal to judicial courts.34 8.5 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that it did not consider it necessary to call in another witness or adjourn the proceedings, pending a response from the IMS, since the author’s arguments have been largely inconsistent and not credible. The Committee 32 33 34 10 See e.g. Patiño v. Panama (CCPR/C/52/D/437/1990), para. 5.2; P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5; Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany (CCPR/C/82/D/1188/2003), para. 7.2; Gilberg v. Germany (CCPR/C/87/D/1403/2005), para. 6.5; Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4; and Singh et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/125/DR/2948/2017), para. 6.4. See P.K. v. Canada (CCPR/C/89/D/1234/2003), paras. 7.4 and 7.5. See Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013), para. 6.4; and the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62.