CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014 they knew his address. The author had then donned women’s clothes and left his place of residence to spend the night in a mosque. The State party also indicates that the author alleged he had been unable to work since his return to Afghanistan in March 2014 because he was afraid, and that it was difficult to live without money. The author also reportedly provided his new telephone number, which he had changed to prevent “them” from finding him. According to the State party, the author finally stated that, if he did not hear from the Danish authorities, he would leave Afghanistan and go somewhere else. 4.8 Between 20 and 22 September 2014, the author exchanged several text messages with the diplomatic staff of the Danish embassy in Kabul, in which the author asked, inter alia, if there had been any news in the case. In response, he learned that the relevant authorities had received all information in the case and had requested the author to keep in contact with his counsel for any additional news. 4.9 As regards the Committee’s request for protection of the author and information on his situation, the State party admits that the Danish authorities are unable to provide protection of the author on Afghan territory, where Denmark does not have jurisdiction. The State party maintains, however, that it has complied with the Committee’s request to instruct the Danish embassy in Kabul to contact the author and provide information on his situation, as described above. 4.10 Regarding the claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the State party argues that the author “has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication”, as required under rule 96 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Thus, it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the author is in danger of being arbitrarily deprived of his life or subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The State party considers this part of the communication to be manifestly ill founded and requests that it be declared inadmissible. 4.11 As regards his claims 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 is of the view that article 14 of the Covenant 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 State party makes reference to the case law of the Committee 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.7 Accordingly, the State party maintains that asylum proceedings fall outside the scope of article 14, and that this part of the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.12 The State party further objects to the author’s allegations concerning article 14 of the Covenant “or equivalent” that the Danish authorities are supposed to have made the author’s possibility of exercising his right to complain to the Committee illusory because of the short period of time between the refusal of reopening and the return. The State party observes in that connection that the Board made its decision in the author’s case on 21 May 2013, whereby domestic remedies were, in principle, exhausted, and that the author could then have submitted a complaint to the Committee. However, the author’s counsel did not submit his complaint to the Committee until 17 March 2014, immediately before the author’s scheduled forced return to his country of origin. In reality, he thus had nearly 10 7 8 See, inter alia, communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted by the Committee on 26 March 2014, para. 8.5.