CCPR/C/120/D/2601/2015 authority or organization. In addition, Board members are not entitled to discuss specific cases with the appointing or nominating authority or organization prior to the Board’s examination of an appeal, and the decisions to suspend or dismiss members of the Board — similar to decisions to suspend or dismiss judges in the Danish courts — are made by the Special Court of Indictment and Revision. As regards the author’s submission that Board hearings are not open to the public, the State party points out that the author did not request that others be allowed to attend the Board’s hearing of his asylum case. For this reason, the State party is of the opinion that the author’s submission does not relate to the proceedings in his case. 6.6 As regards the author’s argument that the fee granted to assigned counsel in connection with hearings before the Board is only for six hours of preparation, the State party submits that, in practice, the Board pays for all relevant legal work performed after a decision has been made by the Danish Immigration Service. The assignment of counsel covers the work performed in connection with the proceedings before the Board and ceases when the Board has decided the appeal. The usual guideline is that the Board will pay for up to six hours of case preparation prior to the oral Board hearing. The individual panel of the Board may, however, decide, on the basis of a specific assessment, to pay counsel for more or less than six hours of preparation, taking into account the scope and nature of the case, including the number of asylum seekers, the volume of the exhibits, the complexity of the case and the volume of relevant background material. The State party observes that the counsels are professional representatives who often have thorough experience in immigration law and in the procedures of the Danish asylum authorities. 6.7 Concerning the author’s claim that there are no educational requirements for interpreters used by the Danish asylum authorities, which allegedly affects the right to a fair trial, the State party observes that the author has not pointed out any errors or omissions in translations done in connection with the proceedings before the Danish Immigration Service or the Board, nor does he appear to have objected to the interpreters used. The State party also observes that the Board is very attentive to the quality of the interpretation provided at its hearings and will suspend a hearing and adjourn the proceedings in case of problems. The State party further notes the author’s submission that he was reluctant to provide information on his situation in the presence of the interpreter summoned for the Board hearing in 2004, due to the nationality and religious background of the interpreter. In this regard, the State party observes that the interpreter’s only task in connection with the proceedings is to translate. An interpreter’s background, including his or her ethnicity, nationality, gender and religion, is irrelevant to his or her task, which was clearly pointed out to the author during the interviews conducted by the Danish Immigration Service. The State party also observes that the author could have mentioned that he felt uncomfortable with the interpreter during the asylum proceedings. 6.8 The State party further notes the author’s submission that asylum interviews ought to be audio recorded. The State party observes that a written report is made by a case officer of each asylum seeker’s oral statement to the Danish Immigration Service. After the asylum interview, the report of the interview is read to the asylum seeker, who can comment on the report, correct any misunderstandings and elaborate on the report if necessary. As regards the issue of the author’s statement to the Board, the State party observes that a clerk makes a summary record of the asylum seeker’s oral statement at the Board hearing, and any issues related to the report or the understanding of the statement are clarified at the Board hearing. The State party submits that the due process guarantees applied in the case at hand.16 It therefore finds that it has not been rendered probable that the interpretation gave rise to any errors or misunderstandings affecting the decision made by the Board. 6.9 Furthermore, the State party recalls that the errors claimed by the author 17 to have occurred in the reporting of specific elements of his statement as reproduced in the Board’s decision of 4 April 2014 did not affect the Board’s assessment of his application for asylum. 16 17 8 See, e.g., communication No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.6. The author points out that the Board incorrectly noted several facts, including the dates of his family’s flight to the Syrian Arab Republic.