CCPR/C/116/D/2357/2014
credibility, the Board considered the author’s statements and demeanour at the Board
hearing, in conjunction with the other information available in the case. Specifically, the
Board found that the author’s statements were lacking in detail, did not seem “selfexperienced” and were implausible in several respects. It was unlikely that Q’s brothers
were not involved in the property transaction even though, according to the author’s
account, they were aware of the negotiations. It was also unlikely that the author physically
attacked Q’s brothers even though they were angry and armed, and even though he alleged
that everyone feared them because of their link to organized crime. In addition, it was
unlikely that Q’s brothers did not attempt to visit the author’s family at their house during
the month that the family was in Zari. Moreover, the author made several inconsistent
statements concerning: the number of rifles used in the conflict; whether it was S or one of
Q’s brothers who hit him with the butt of a rifle; whether other people were occupying the
house in Zari where they had hidden; to whom the house in Zari belonged; whether Q was
in India or Pakistan; and whether the brothers visited the plot of land once or twice.
4.5
Furthermore, the author made material additions to his narrative during proceedings
before the Board. In particular, he mentioned before the Board but not before the Danish
Immigration Service that the land agreement involved a dowry to be given by his father to
Q’s brothers. He also stated before the Service that Q’s brothers had gone door-to-door to
look for him, whereas he stated at the Board hearing that the brothers had searched his
neighbour’s house, where the author was hiding. The author also added to his statement
concerning his brother’s role during the fight on the plot of land. During his interview with
the Service, he stated that his brother was present during the entire incident, whereas he
stated at the Board hearing that his brother was initially at home during the fight and only
arrived later. The Board, in assessing the author’s statements, was aware that the author was
illiterate, had a special dialect and had been under medication. The Board also noted that
the author had not been a member of any political or religious association or organization
and had not been politically active in any way.
4.6
In addition, the Board found that the documents the author provided with his request
to reopen asylum proceedings were not credible. The documents were dated January 2014,
when the Board considered the author’s asylum application. The Board also observed that,
according to available background material, forged documents were widely used and easy
to obtain in Afghanistan.3 In conjunction with its finding that the author’s statements were
implausible and inconsistent, the Board found it reasonable to deem that the documents
were fabricated.
4.7
The author is attempting to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the
factual circumstances of his case reassessed; he has not provided any new or specific details
about his situation. For the foregoing reasons, the author will not risk treatment contrary to
articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant if returned to Afghanistan. Moreover, the author’s argument
under article 14 of the Covenant is inadmissible ratione materiae, because this provision
does not apply to asylum proceedings. For the reasons discussed above, the communication
is also wholly without merit.
4.8
Regarding the author’s argument that he did not have sufficient opportunity to
submit the communication before his scheduled removal, the Board’s decision was issued
on 13 January 2014 and the author could have submitted a communication to the
Committee immediately thereafter. He did not do so, however, until 17 March 2014, just
before his scheduled involuntary return. He had two months to prepare his communication.
3
4
The State party refers to the Board’s citation of the report of the fact-finding mission of the Danish
Immigration Service to Kabul entitled “Country of origin information for use in the asylum
determination process” (29 May 2012).