CCPR/C/120/D/2601/2015 Zameli, who reportedly knows the author, continues to be influential owing to his position as a parliamentarian. An additional risk factor for the author rests in the fact that he deserted in 2002 to avoid a call-up for military service (at the age of 55). He alleges that a few old soldiers may still remember him as a “traitor” and desire revenge. 5.10 The author submits that he has never made a secret of his preference for secular, democratic rule in Iraq; he has expressed this many times, including in newspaper interviews and books. He could not live in an area dominated by ISIL. He maintains that if he were to be forcibly removed to Iraq, he would be subject to persecution and irreparable harm and persecution because he is a “well-known, dangerous and prominent person”. 5.11 The author also reiterates that his case has never been heard by a court and that a request to reopen his asylum case in Denmark can only be addressed by the same Board, which is contrary to the principle of a fair trial. In that context, the author submits that, instead of referring to article 14 of the Covenant, he considers it more appropriate to refer to article 13, which deals with the expulsion of aliens. Finally, the author requests the Committee not to lift interim measures. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 On 18 November 2016, the State party submitted that the author’s comments of 26 February 2016 did not provide new or specific information on the conflicts in his country of origin to support his claim. The State party therefore reiterates its observations of 29 October 2015. 6.2 The State party notes that the author, in comments of 26 February 2016, replaced the allegations of a violation of article 14 of the Covenant with an alleged violation of article 13. The State party observes, however, that article 13 of the Covenant does not confer the right to appeal,13 or the right to a court hearing. 14 6.3 It observes that the author’s case has been examined at two instances: the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board. It further submits that the author could have requested the Board to reopen the asylum proceedings on the basis of the essentially new information. The State party observes that the author requested the reopening of his asylum case on two occasions, but the Board dismissed these requests on 10 March 2008 and 23 October 2015 respectively. 6.4 As regards the author’s submission that the decisions of the Board cannot be appealed to the courts, the State party observes that decisions of the Board are final, hence not subject to judicial review. While this practice has been established by the Danish Supreme Court, aliens may nevertheless bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, which have the authority to adjudicate any matter concerning the limits to the competence of a public authority. The Supreme Court also established that the ordinary courts’ review of the Board’s decisions is limited to a review on points of law, including any inadequacy in the basis for the relevant decision and the unlawful exercise of discretion; the Board’s assessment of evidence is not subject to review. 6.5 As regards the author’s allegations that the Board is not a court of justice, since its hearings are not open to the public, and that it is not independent, as one of its members is part of the Ministry of Justice, the State party claims that the Board is an independent and quasi-judicial body, which is considered to be a court or tribunal (see para. 4.2 above),15 and that the Board was transferred to the responsibility of the Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing on 28 June 2015. Nonetheless, pursuant to section 53 (1) of the Aliens Act, members of the Board act independently of the appointing or nominating 13 14 15 See, e.g., Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, para. 6.3. The State party refers to communication No. 58/1979, Maroufidou v. Sweden, Views adopted on 9 April 1981, para. 10.1, arguing that the Committee did not dispute that a mere administrative “review” of the decision to expel the author from Sweden was not in violation of article 13 of the Covenant. Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 deals with the right of asylum seekers to have a decision taken in their case reviewed by a court or tribunal. 7