CCPR/C/117/D/2464/2014 State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits 4.1 On 7 April 2015, the State party submitted that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility. Therefore, the present communication is manifestly unfounded and should be considered inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party submits that the author has not sufficiently established that his return to Somalia would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 4.2 The State party describes the structure and jurisdiction of the Refugee Appeals Board. The Board is an independent, quasi-judicial body and is considered a court within the meaning of article 39 of the Council of the European Union Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.6 The Board’s decisions are final. Aliens may, however, 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. As established by the Supreme Court, reviews by the ordinary courts’ of decisions made by the Board are limited to those on points of law, and the Board’s assessment of evidence is not subject to review. 4.3 Under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be granted to an alien if the person’s circumstances fall within the provisions of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Section 7 (1) incorporates article 1 (a) of that Convention, so that in principle refugees are legally entitled to a residence permit. A residence permit will further be issued to an alien upon application if he or she risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or other serious ill-treatment or punishment in case of return to his country of origin. Section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act is very similar to article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, according to the explanatory notes on that section, the immigration authorities must comply with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the State party’s international obligations when applying that provision. In practice, the Board will generally consider the conditions for issuing a residence permit to be met when there are specific and individual factors substantiating that the asylum seeker would be exposed to a real risk of the death penalty or ill-treatment upon return. Furthermore, pursuant to section 31 (1) of the Aliens Act, an alien may not be returned to a country where he would be at risk of the death penalty or of being subjected to serious ill-treatment, or where the alien would not be protected against being sent on to such country (the principle of non-refoulement). This obligation is absolute and protects all aliens. 4.4 The Board assigns a counsel free of charge in all cases and all the case materials and documents are sent to counsel well in advance before the hearing. Proceedings are oral and, inter alia, an asylum seeker, his or her counsel and an interpreter are present. At the hearing, an asylum seeker is allowed to make a statement and answer questions. After the closing statements of the counsel and the representative of the Danish Immigration Service, an asylum seeker can make a final statement. The Board’s decision will normally be served on the asylum seeker immediately after the hearing and the chairman of the hearing will briefly explain the reasoning of the decision. The State party notes that decisions are based on an individual and specific assessment of the relevant case and that an asylum seeker’s statements regarding his grounds for asylum are assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, including in the light of the background information on the respective country of origin. An asylum seeker must provide all required information in order to enable the authorities to decide whether he or she falls within section 7 of the Aliens Act and it is thus 6 4 Article 39 deals with the right of asylum seekers to have a decision taken in their case reviewed by a court or tribunal.