CCPR/C/123/D/2328/2014 and, most recently, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland temporarily stopped such deportations because of the request from the Afghan authorities. 5.9 The author also refers to a travel warning issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, in which it recommends that Danish nationals should not travel to Afghanistan, given the heightened risk of terrorist attacks and kidnappings across the country, including in Kabul.16 In this context, the author notes with regret that the Danish authorities have so far not accepted the position of UNHCR on the protection needs of asylum seekers from Afghanistan, which is stipulated in the Eligibility Guidelines. Finally, the author adds that the situation in Afghanistan has changed a lot since 2004 when the memorandum of understanding was negotiated. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 19 February 2016, the State provided additional observations to the Committee and observed that the author’s submission of 13 October 2015 did not provide any new information on the conflicts in his country of origin on which the present communication was based. 6.2 As regards the author’s reference to the travel advice for Afghanistan from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the State party submits that the aforementioned travel guidelines provide risk assessments and advice targeted at Danish nationals. 6.3 According to the author’s submission of 13 October 2015, he was reportedly so afraid of staying in Denmark that he fled to Sweden at the time when the communication was submitted to the Committee. The State party observes in this respect that it appears from an email of 24 February 2015 from the National Aliens Division of the National Police that, when subjected to departure control, the author stated that he wanted to withdraw his application for asylum in Denmark and to return voluntarily as quickly as possible with the assistance of the International Organization for Migration. 6.4 As regards the author’s reference to the Eligibility Guidelines, the statement made by the Afghan President on World Refugee Day in 2015 and the indication from the Afghan authorities in March 2015 that they want to renegotiate the repatriation agreement with the Danish authorities, the State party observes that those references cannot lead to a revised legal assessment of the author’s eligibility for asylum. Accordingly, the Board still finds that the general situation in Afghanistan, including in Kabul, is not in itself of such a nature that, for that reason alone, the author meets the conditions for being granted asylum. The State party agrees with the Board’s finding. 6.5 The State party further observes that, in his initial submission to the Committee, the author claimed that Denmark had also violated article 14 of the Covenant. In this respect, the State party submitted in its observations of 8 July 2014 that asylum proceedings fell outside the scope of that article. The State party notes that the author’s counsel has subsequently invoked a violation of article 13 and/or article 14 of the Covenant with regard to the Board’s decision of 23 January 2012, due to the impossibility of appealing that decision before a court. In response to this claim, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, which states that article 13 offers some of the guarantees afforded by article 14 (1) of the Covenant, but not the right to appeal 17 or the right to a court hearing. 18 Therefore, the State party considers that the author has failed to give an account of why article 13 of the Covenant affords a right to appeal and to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his claim under article 13 of the Covenant, as required by rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. This part of the communication is therefore manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. 16 17 18 Denmark, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “All travel to Afghanistan discouraged”. The author does not provide further details in relation to this travel advice for Afghanistan, including the date on which it was issued. The State party refers to X and X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 6.3. The State party refers to Maroufidou v. Sweden (CCPR/C/12/D/58/1979). In this communication, the Committee did not dispute the assertion that a mere administrative review of a decision expelling an alien from Sweden did not amount to a violation of article 13 of the Covenant. 7