CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in support of its argument that, notwithstanding the author’s previous work as interpreter for the United States forces, the author should demonstrate that, owing to the individual circumstances of his case, he faces a risk upon return. However, the Committee observes that no such analysis was undertaken in the refugee appeals board, which has based its decision solely on the assessment of the author’s credibility. 9.9 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he mixed dates as a result of pressure felt during the interview with the immigration services and because he was not familiar with the Gregorian calendar. The Committee further observes that the author made numerous and convincing attempts to try and clarify discrepancies in dates (whether he terminated his employment on 1 May, 20 May or 31 May 2011), which cannot in and of themselves be considered to vitiate the whole credibility of his allegations. 9.10 The Committee took note of the author’s claim that, owing to his past work, he belongs to a risk group under the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan, which was not contested by the State party. The author has also claimed that his brother-in-law was killed by individuals who had been searching for him, a claim that was dismissed by the refugee appeals board as insufficiently substantiated. The Committee however notes that neither the Danish immigration service nor the board initiated any investigation as to the veracity and validity of the evidence produced in support of his allegations,20 aside from rejecting a police report produced by the author as a result of his reporting of the crime to the Afghan police authorities. 9.11 In the circumstances of this case, and reiterating that the refugee appeals board based its decision to reject the author’s asylum claim merely on inconsistencies that are not central to the general claim made by the author as a former interpreter for the United States forces in Afghanistan, the Committee concludes that the material before it suggests that insufficient weight was given to the author’ allegations and that, notwithstanding the deference given to the immigration authorities to appreciate the evidence before them, the State party has not adequately addressed the author’s personal circumstances, which should have been devoted further analysis. 9.12 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the author’s removal to Afghanistan would constitute a breach by the State party of its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 10. The Committee acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the author’s removal to Afghanistan by the State party would violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, which establishes that States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to proceed to a review of the decision to forcibly remove the author to Afghanistan, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant and the Committee’s present Views. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author while his request for asylum is being reconsidered. 20 See communication No. 2370/2014, A.H. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 8.7. See also communication No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015. 13