CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014 5.4 On 12 February 2015, the author, in his e-mail correspondence, yet again stated that he found himself in a bad situation, and urged protection for himself and his family.8 State party’s further submission 6.1 On 28 January 2015, the State party maintained, with reference to its observations of 1 October 2014, that the submissions by the author’s counsel of 12 January 2015 did not give rise to any further comments by the State party. The State party maintains, as stated in its observations of 1 October 2014, that the communication is manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. The State party further maintains that, should the Committee find the communication to be admissible, the return of the author to Afghanistan did not constitute a violation of the provisions of the Covenant. 6.2 On 10 February 2015, the State party, in its submission, indicated that, in reference to the State party’s observations of 1 October 2014, the submissions by the author’s counsel of 3 February 2015 did not give rise to any further comments by the State party. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee notes that it is undisputed that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required by article 5 (2) (b), of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee notes, regarding the author’s claim under article 14 of the Covenant “or equivalent”, and in particular the author’s objections to the short period of time between the refusal of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board to reopen the author’s asylum proceedings and the return of the author to Afghanistan, the State party’s arguments that article 14 lays down the principle of due process of law, including the right of access to the courts in the determination of a person’s rights and obligations in a suit of law. The Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to the expulsion of an alien 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 rather are governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 9 Accordingly, the Committee considers the author’s claim under article 14 inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims with respect to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant should be held as inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation, as the author “has failed to establish a prima facie case for the 8 9 10 The author adds that, if no help is forthcoming, he threatens to set fire to his children and himself in front of the Danish embassy. See, inter alia, communication No. 1494/2006, Arusjak Chadzjian and her Children, Sarine, Meline and Edgar Barsegian v. The Netherlands, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 2008, para. 8.4: “The Committee refers to its jurisprudence that deportation proceedings did not involve either ‘the determination of any criminal charge’ or ‘rights and obligations in a suit at law’ within the meaning of article 14” (citing communication No. 1234/2003, P.K. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 20 March 2007, paras. 7.4 and 7.5). See also X v. Denmark, para. 8.5.