CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014 the Refugee Appeals Board in its decisions of 4 December 2012 and 19 September 2014. It further draws attention to the jurisprudence of the Committee, according to which important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was “clearly arbitrary” or amounted to “a denial of justice”. 19 The State party considers that the author does not explain why the assessment would be arbitrary or otherwise amount to a manifest error or denial of justice in his case. 20 It also recalls that it is generally for the organs of the State party to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether a risk exists. It further submits that even though the author has been found to be less than 18 years of age, the Board carried out the necessary assessments to conclude that the author had the procedural capacity and the necessary maturity to undergo an asylum procedure. The State party maintains that the Board took the author’s cultural difference, age, maturity and alleged sexual orientation into account. 6.3 The State party further contests the author’s reference to the views of the Committee in M.I. v. Sweden, as this case differs from the present case on essential points. In M.I. v. Sweden, the author’s sexual orientation and her allegations of rape by Bangladeshi policemen while in detention were not challenged by the State party and the authorities of the State party had considered it a fact that the author had been subjected to abuse in her country of origin. In the present case, the State party’s authorities carried out a thorough assessment of the author’s statements and of the documents provided by the author (see the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board of 4 December 2012 and 19 September 2014) and the Board rejected crucial elements of the author’s statements as being non-credible and fabricated for the occasion. Accordingly, the Board could not accept as a fact the author’s statement of his grounds for asylum. In the attached addendum, the State party’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms that the Daily Banglar Manush appears on the information portal of the Government of Bangladesh and operates as a local newspaper primarily based on first-hand sources. However, in its decision of 19 September 2014, the Board considered only whether the newspaper article produced was deemed to be fabricated for the occasion and not whether the relevant newspaper existed. The State party considers that the publication of the article in the Daily Banglar Manush must be considered a fact, but that the publication would not expose the author to such a level of persecution or abuse that would justify granting him asylum, because of the limited circulation of the referred newspaper. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 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 further recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and 19 20 See communication No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3. See, for example, communications No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, paras. 7.4 and 7.5, and No. 2426/2014, N. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 23 July 2015, para. 6.6. 9