CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 experienced any problems with the Afghan authorities. Accordingly, the author appears inconspicuous and the State party therefore finds that his removal to Afghanistan does not entail a specific and individual risk of violation of his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant by the authorities, the Taliban or others in Afghanistan. 4.16 Regarding the author’s submission that the Refugee Appeals Board has failed to decide on the issue of an internal flight alternative (see para. 3.3 above), the State party observes that this issue is irrelevant, considering that the Board has found in its three decisions on the case – and continues to find – that the author would not be at a specific and individual risk of being subjected to persecution or abuse justifying asylum under section 7 (1) or (2) of the Aliens Act if he was removed to Afghanistan. 4.17 The State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board, which is a collegiate body of a quasi-judicial nature, made its decision of 6 February 2013 based on a procedure during which the author had the opportunity to present his views, both in writing and orally, to the Board with the assistance of legal counsel. The Board has conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case. The State party recalls that the Committee has stated on several occasions that it is generally for the courts of States parties to evaluate the facts and evidence of a particular case, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The State party finds that the Board included all relevant information in its decisions and that the submission of the communication to the Committee has not brought to light any information substantiating the author’s claim that he would risk persecution or abuse if he was removed to Afghanistan. 4.18 The State party recalls that the author is considered not to have given any reasons why article 18 of the Covenant is relied upon in this case (see para. 4.6 above). For that reason, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish that he has been deprived of his rights under article 18. Furthermore, the State party reiterates its position that Denmark cannot be held responsible for violations of article 18 alleged to be committed by another State party outside the territory and jurisdiction of Denmark (see paras. 4.7–4.8). 4.19 The State party also submits that the author has been treated no differently from any other person applying for asylum in terms of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (see para. 4.9 above). The author has thus not been subjected to treatment contrary to article 26 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 9 February 2016, the author’s counsel informed the Committee that, despite the author’s forcible removal to Afghanistan, he would continue to represent him before the Committee, since the power of attorney given to him remained in force. He also stated that the author was claiming a violation of article 13 instead of article 14 of the Covenant, in that the author was only allowed an administrative procedure to assess his grounds for being granted asylum and was denied access to the courts to appeal the Board’s rejection of his request to reopen the asylum proceedings. 5.2 The author’s counsel does not have any comments in relation to the assessment of the author’s initial grounds for being granted asylum by the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board. 5.3 The author’s counsel recalls that the author’s new sur place grounds for being granted asylum, his conversion to Christianity in Denmark, was only examined and dismissed by a person who was a member of the legal staff of the Refugee Appeals Board, with the approval of the Chair of the Board. It was not therefore the Board as such that made the decision to reject the request to reopen the author’s asylum proceedings. He argues in this connection that the author should have benefited from a new oral hearing before the Danish Immigration Service, which would have allowed him to explain his new sur place grounds for being granted asylum and he would then have had access to the Board as the second instance to 9