CCPR/C/123/D/2328/2014 4.3 As to the admissibility of the communication, the State party argues that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility with respect to the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, since it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that his life will be in danger or that he will be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Afghanistan. The communication is therefore manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.4 The State party further recalls that article 14 of the Covenant lays down the principle of due process, including the right to have access to the courts in the determination of a person’s rights and obligations in a suit at law. It follows from the Committee’s jurisprudence that proceedings relating to the expulsion of an alien do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit of law” within the meaning of article 14 (1), but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 8 Against this background, the State party submits that asylum proceedings fall outside the scope of article 14 of the Covenant, and that this part of the communication should therefore be considered inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.5 On the merits, the State party submits that the author has not sufficiently established that his return to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The State party recalls in this regard that its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, under which a residence permit will be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he or she returned to his or her country of origin. 4.6 As far as the assessment of the credibility of the author’s statement is concerned, the State party refers to findings made by the Board in its decision of 23 January 2012. In particular, the Board found that the author had failed to substantiate his grounds for asylum, and that his statement on such grounds had been fabricated for the occasion. In that connection, the Board took into consideration that the author was unable to account for the circumstances surrounding the disposal of his family’s three cars. He was thus unable to explain whether the Taliban had taken the cars or whether the family had sold the cars in order to pay the Taliban. The author was also unable to explain why the family, who were originally well off, had not been able to respond in a relevant manner to the threat from the Taliban, for example by moving their shop or by fleeing once they had realized that they could not pay the Taliban. 4.7 The Board also took into account that the author had elaborated on his statement during the asylum proceedings. In connection with his asylum application, the author had stated to the police that he had departed from Afghanistan because his life had been in danger, as a result of his father and brother having been kidnapped by the Taliban. Consequently, the author had been certain that the Taliban had wanted to kidnap him too because his father had expressed his favourable views on the Government and the international forces. Later, the author elaborated on his statement, explaining to the Immigration Service that he had spent the night at the house of his maternal uncle when the Taliban had sought out his family’s house. Likewise, until interviewed by the Immigration Service, the author had not mentioned anything about the Taliban having used violence when they had attempted to pressure his family into telling them the author’s whereabouts. Moreover, until interviewed by the Immigration Service, the author had not mentioned that his mother had arrived at his maternal uncle’s house with money for him so that he could depart the day after the incident. The Board concluded that the author had failed to produce a reasonable explanation for withholding those central parts of his grounds for asylum until interviewed by the Immigration Service. The Board also found that his statement to the effect that he had not had time to make these statements to the police could not lead to a different assessment. Accordingly, the Board found no basis for issuing a residence permit to the author under section 7 (1) or (2) of the Aliens Act. 4.8 The State party submits that the Board’s decision under section 7 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act was made on the basis of a specific and individual assessment of the author’s 8 4 Reference is made to X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 8.5.