CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015 he should not be deported: the situation there has become too dangerous, including in Kabul.14 3.3 The author also refers to the Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan, published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2013, according to which the following groups are in need of international protection: individuals associated with and perceived as supportive of the Government and the international community, men and boys of fighting age, individuals perceived as contravening the Taliban interpretation of Islamic principles, norms and values, and members of ethnic minority groups. He explains that, owing to his travel to Europe, if he was returned to Afghanistan he would certainly be perceived as having contravened Islamic rules and as being supportive of the Government and/or the international community. He further claims that, given his age, he would be at risk of being forced to fight either for the Government or for the Taliban, and he alleges that sexual assaults on young men are commonly reported in Afghanistan. 15 In addition, he claims that, as a Tajik, if he is returned to Afghanistan he will be persecuted because he belongs to a minority ethnic group. 3.4 The author further notes that the Board has had to reopen several cases of asylum seekers whose asylum requests had previously been rejected as a result of proceedings before the Committee, and claims that this demonstrates that the Board often makes mistakes. He quotes several cases registered by the Committee and reopened by the Board in which, after a review of the case, refugee status has been granted. In particular, he refers to communications submitted by Afghan nationals which have been discontinued by the Committee because the authors have been granted refugee status following the Board’s review of their cases.16 3.5 The author also submits that, as an asylum seeker, he was not able to appeal the decision of the Board dated 28 April 2015, although any other person in Denmark can appeal against the decisions of administrative bodies. He considers that this situation amounts to a violation of articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant. State party’s observations 4.1 On 22 December 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It submits that the communication is not substantiated, as the author has not demonstrated a possible breach of the Covenant if he is deported to Afghanistan. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board,17 as well as the legislation applying to asylum proceedings. 18 It indicates that the Board analyses whether an asylum applicant may fear being subjected to specific and individual persecution or to a risk in the case of return to his or her country of origin, taking into account any information on persecution prior to the asylum seeker’s departure from his or her country of origin (section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act). In addition, the State party indicates that a residence permit may be issued to an alien who risks the death penalty or risks being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to his or her country of origin. The State party also indicates that the Board considers the conditions for issuing a residence permit fulfilled if there are specific and individual factors rendering it probable that the asylum seeker will be exposed to a real risk of death or of being subjected to torture or illtreatment in case of return (section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act). 14 15 16 17 18 4 The author states that several attacks have been perpetrated recently by the Taliban in the capital. However, he does not provide further details. The author does not provide further details on this matter. The author refers to communications No. 2320/2013, A.E. v. Denmark, discontinuance decision of 2 November 2015, No. 2150/2012, J.G. v. Denmark, discontinuance decision of 1 November 2013 and No. 2286/2013, Z.S. v. Denmark, discontinuance decision of 31 October 2014. See communication No. 2379/2014, Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.1-4.3. The State party refers to sections 7 (1), 7 (2), 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Aliens Act.