CCPR/C/121/D/2612/2015 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 20 November 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party considers that the author failed to establish a prima facie case for the admissibility of his allegations under article 7 of the Covenant. It stated that there were no substantial grounds for believing that he risked being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Egypt, therefore the communication was manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee consider the author’s allegations admissible, the State party maintains that article 7 of the Covenant would not be violated if he is returned to Egypt. 4.2 The State party provided a detailed description of the asylum proceedings under the Aliens Act and of the organization and competence of the Refugee Appeals Board. 6 Decisions of the Board are based on an individual and specific assessment of the relevant case. The asylum seeker’s statements regarding his or her grounds for seeking asylum are assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, including what is known about conditions in the country of origin (background material). The Board is responsible not only for examining and bringing out information on the specific facts of the case, but also for providing necessary background material, including information on the situation in the asylum seeker’s country of origin or first country of asylum. 7 4.3 The author did not produce any essential new information about his case before the Committee, beyond that already relied upon in connection with his asylum proceedings in Denmark. The State party considers that the information provided was already thoroughly reviewed by the Refugee Appeals Board in its decision of 28 April 2015. In addition to other information on the situation in Egypt, the memorandum of 26 August 2014 on punishment imposed on draft evaders in Egypt, prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, as requested by the Danish Immigration Service, was taken into account in the decision of the Immigration Service and the Board on 20 December 2014 and 28 April 2015, respectively. 4.4 The State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author had not rendered his allegations probable in a credible manner that the Egyptian authorities would pursue him because of his draft evasion. The Board observed in that respect that, according to his own statement, he registered in the summer of 2005 for compulsory military service, in accordance with his age at the time; he was subsequently in contact with the Egyptian authorities in 2007 and 2008 — in the latter case, in connection with his return after his illegal departure, without there being any real consequences of his alleged draft evasion; and the military had never contacted his family to look for him. In its credibility assessment, the Board gave some weight to the fact that the author had previously entered Denmark on 19 December 2010, given a different name, stated that he was a stateless Palestinian from Gaza and put forward very different grounds for seeking asylum. 4.5 The State party informs the Committee that, in his first asylum application, the author referred to the general situation in Gaza, including the situation of stateless Palestinians, the tensions between Fatah and Hamas and his parents’ poor treatment of him, in comparison with his brothers. At the screening interview on 6 January 2014, after his second arrival in Denmark, he stated that the reason why he provided false information about his identity and grounds for asylum in his first asylum application in Denmark was because he was scared and did not want to be returned to Egypt. He also stated that everything he had previously said was a lie. He said that he came back to Denmark from Switzerland because he was told that he would not have any problems applying for asylum in Denmark due to his previous lies. In that connection, the State party maintains that the author failed to give a reasonable explanation as to why he provided false information about his identity and grounds for asylum in the first application, and that generally weakened his credibility. 6 7 See communication No. 2379/2014, Hussein Ahmed et al. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.1-4.3. The State party indicates that background material on Egypt available to the Refugee Appeals Board can be found at www.fln.dk/da/baggrundsmateriale. 5