CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014 accepted. The author alleges that persons without legal travel documents are arrested and taken to court, where their background and their reason for departure are assessed. 6 3.6 Against this background, the author claims that the authorities of the State party arbitrarily refused his asylum request, failing to assess adequately the risk that he would face if he were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In that connection, he submits that the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision to refuse his asylum request was only based on its appraisal of his accounts as implausible, that the Board did not even provide an adequate explanation for finding them untrustworthy, and that it therefore failed to assess all the elements related to his case, including the fact that he is a sympathizer of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 9 July 2014, the State party provided observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible on the grounds of incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant, and for non-substantiation. If the Committee were to declare the communication admissible, the State party maintains that the Covenant would not be violated if the author were returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.2 The State party provided a detailed description of the asylum proceedings under the Aliens Act and, in particular, of the organization and competence of the Refugee Appeals Board. The State party advises that the Board’s decisions are based on an individual and specific assessment of the relevant case. The asylum seeker’s statements regarding his grounds for seeking asylum are assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, which includes what is known about conditions in the country of origin (background material). The Board is responsible not only for examining and bringing out information on the specific facts of the case, but also for providing the necessary background material, including information on the situation in the asylum seeker’s country of origin or first country of asylum. It also notes that it is up to the asylum seeker to make it probable that the conditions for granting asylum are met. The assessment of evidence, carried out by the Board, is not governed by special rules of evidence. Indeed, the assessment of evidence performed by the Board is made on the basis of an overall assessment of the asylum seeker’s statements and personal appearance during the hearing, in conjunction with other information relevant to the case, including the Board’s background material on the asylum seeker’s country of origin. In its adjudication of cases, the Board seeks to determine what findings of fact it should make, based on the evidence. If the asylum seeker’s statements appear coherent and consistent, the Board will normally accept them as facts. However, inconsistent statements by the asylum seeker about crucial parts of his grounds for seeking asylum may weaken his credibility. 4.3 The State party maintains that it is the author’s responsibility to establish a prima facie case, but that, in the present case, the author failed to do so for the purposes of the admissibility of his communication under articles 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. It has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the author is in danger of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of article 7, if he were to be returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.4 The author’s claims under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant are manifestly illfounded. Moreover, the author is seeking to apply those obligations in an extraterritorial manner. The State party submits that the author’s allegations of a violation of those articles 6 6 Ibid., p. 260.