CCPR/C/127/D/2654/2015 Refugee Appeals Board upheld that decision. At the same time, the author was ordered to leave Denmark within 15 days. According to the author, the Board accepted as fact the author’s statements that he had been forced to help soldiers move to a camp in 2006 and, in that connection, that he had been involved in an accident as a consequence of which he had been hospitalized. 6 Nevertheless, the Board doubted that the author had indeed found himself in permanent conflict with the armed forces as a result of that accident. Furthermore, it found that there were inconsistencies in the author’s statements concerning the events following his discharge from hospital. The Board, having also weighed up the general human rights situation in Myanmar, held that the author had not shown that it was probable that, should he return to his country of origin, he would be at risk of persecution justifying asylum pursuant to the relevant laws of Denmark. 2.6 On 9 September 2015, the Danish Immigration Service decided that the author was to be expelled from Denmark and banned from re-entry for two years because he had failed to leave Denmark within the time limit for departure and because he had not cooperated in his voluntary return. 2.7 The author claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his deportation to Myanmar would put him at risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, he claims that, because of his Kachin ethnicity, he was repeatedly subjected to forced labour by the armed forces in Myanmar and that he complied with those orders to avoid being killed or tortured. He claims that the border authorities would, upon his return, question him in order to obtain information about his and other Kachin refugees’ activities abroad. He also claims that the authorities would subject him to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to make him provide the information they were interested in.7 Furthermore, he complains about the generally insecure conditions for Kachins in Myanmar. 3.2 The author further complains, citing articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant, that, while he could not appeal the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board, other individuals do have the right to lodge appeals before ordinary courts.8 3.3 Furthermore, the author claims a violation of articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant, asserting that States parties are under an obligation not to deport persons who risk having their human rights violated. He claims that he fears a violation of his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of thought, consciousness and religion. 9 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By a note verbale dated April 2016, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It claims that the communication should be considered inadmissible for lack of substantiation. As concerns the alleged violation of articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible for being incompatible ratione materiae and ratione loci with the Covenant. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party maintains that the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that his forcible removal to Myanmar would amount to a violation of articles 7, 18 or 19 of the Covenant. The State party further submits that the author’s rights have not been violated under articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant in connection with the examination of his asylum case by the Danish authorities. 6 7 8 9 It is not stated in the decision whether it was also accepted as fact that the author had been hospitalized not only because of the accident but also because he had been beaten up by the soldiers. The author is making reference to a fighting that took place between the armed forces and people belonging to the Kachin minority in November 2014. The author does not put forward any further arguments. The author does not provide any details to substantiate these claims. 3