CCPR/C/119/D/2293/2013 order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 6 6.6 The Committee notes that the Refugee Appeals Board pointed to contradictions in the authors’ statements and found that the authors were not credible as to the risk of harm they had alleged they faced in China. Furthermore, the authors have not provided evidence that E’s parents were detained owing to their association with the Falun Gong literature found at their shop. The Committee considers that, while the authors disagree with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, the information before the Committee does not indicate that those findings are manifestly unreasonable. 7 The Committee considers that the authors have not established a sufficient basis for their claim that the evaluation of their asylum application by the Danish authorities was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.8 Accordingly, the authors’ claims under article 7 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 The Committee also notes that the authors have not explained the basis of their claim under article 26 of the Covenant, that is, why they felt that they had received discriminatory treatment during the procedure before the Refugee Appeals Board. The Committee therefore considers that the authors’ claims under article 26 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.8 Regarding the authors’ claims under article 14 of the Covenant that the Refugee Appeals Board lacks the attributes of a judicial court and that G was unfairly denied the opportunity to testify, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to aliens’ expulsion do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1) but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant.9 Furthermore, the latter provision offers to asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal to judicial courts. 10 The Committee therefore concludes that this claim is inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee also considers that, even if the authors had invoked article 13 of the Covenant, their claims on this issue would be insufficiently substantiated. 6.9 The Committee therefore decides: (a) Optional Protocol; (b) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the That the present decision should be transmitted to the State party and to the authors 6 7 8 9 10 6 See, inter alia, communications No. 2559/2015, I.M.Y. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 14 July 2016, para. 7.6; and No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.4. See communication No. 2351/2014, R.G. et al. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 November 2015, para. 7.7. See, inter alia, A. v. Denmark (see footnote 3 above), para. 7.4. See, inter alia, A. and B v. Denmark (see footnote 4 above), para. 7.3; and communication No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 8.5. See communication No. 2288/2013, Osayi Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark, Views adopted on 23 July 2015, para. 6.4; general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62.