CCPR/C/117/D/2464/2014 incumbent upon an asylum seeker to substantiate that the conditions for granting asylum are met. 4.5 The information available to the Board includes the asylum seeker’s own statements to the police and the Danish Immigration Service. That information is available in police reports made in connection with the asylum seeker’s entry or application for asylum; reports of the asylum screening interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service; the family information sheet completed by the asylum seeker in his native language or in another language mastered; and reports of the additional interview(s) conducted by the Danish Immigration Service. The Board may also hear witnesses. If an asylum seeker’s statements appear coherent and consistent, the Board will normally consider them as facts, while, in cases in which an asylum seeker’s statements throughout the proceedings are inconsistent, the Board will seek clarifications. However, inconsistent statements about crucial parts of an asylum seeker’s grounds for seeking asylum may weaken his or her credibility. In case of doubts as to the credibility of an asylum seeker’s story, the Board will always assess the extent to which the principle of the benefit of doubt could be applied. In addition, background reports are obtained from various sources, including the Danish Refugee Council, other Governments, UNHCR and organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 4.6 The State party then recalls the facts on which the present communication is based and refers to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 4 September 2014. The State party observes that the author’s communication to the Committee did not produce new and specific information about his situation. All background reports referred to by the author were known to the Refugee Appeals Board at the date of its latest decision in the case and were taken into account in the assessment of the matter. The Board accepted the author’s statement on the reason for his departure from Somalia in 1992 as a fact, but found that his individual circumstances did not justify asylum or protection status under section 7 of the Aliens Act. It also found that the author would not be presently at risk of being subjected to persecution justifying asylum in the event of his return to Somalia. The State party observes in this respect that the basis for the assessment of whether an alien risks persecution or abuse justifying asylum in case of return to his country of origin is the information available at the time of the decision. 4.7 According to the current background information available, the situation in Mogadishu is not at present of such nature that everybody returning to the area in and around Mogadishu may be deemed to be at a real risk of abuse contrary to section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act and article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, solely as a result of his presence in the area. 4.8 Like the Refugee Appeals Board, the State party cannot accept as a fact that the author presently risks being subjected to torture and to inhuman or degrading treatment in the event of his return to Somalia owing to his clan affiliation. It appears from the background information available that clan affiliation no longer plays the same role in Mogadishu as it previously did and that no one in Mogadishu is at risk of attacks or persecution owing solely to his or her clan affiliation. As regards the author’s statement that in the event of his return to Mogadishu he would have no clan protection because he belonged to the Bagadi clan, the State party finds that this cannot lead to a different assessment. According to the same background information available, 7 the protection of individuals no longer depends on a person’s clan affiliation. 7 See “Update on security and protection issues in Mogadishu and South-Central Somalia” (March 2014), pp. 35 and 36. Available from http://landinfo.no/asset/2837/1/2837_1.pdf. 5