CCPR/C/117/D/2415/2014 7.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the decisions of the Refugee Board become final without a possibility of being appealed to courts and that the State party thus violates articles 14 of the Covenant. In that regard, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens 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. 11 Article 13 of the Covenant offers some of the protection afforded by article 14 (1) of the Covenant but not the right of appeal.12 The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claim under article 14 is inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 In relation to the author’s claims with respect to article 19 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that these claims cannot be dissociated from his claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant and are thus likewise insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee therefore decides that: (a) Protocol; (b) 11 12 The communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional The decision should be transmitted to the State party and to the author. See, inter alia, communication No. 2186/2012, Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, para. 6.3; communication No. 1494/2006, A.C. et al. v. Netherlands, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 2008, para 8.4; and communication No. 1234/2003, P.K. v. Canada, of 20 March 2007, paras. 7.4 and 7.5. See general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62. 9