CCPR/C/123/D/2328/2014 Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7. On 29 April 2016, the Committee granted the author’s request dated 28 April 2016 for an extension of the deadline for the submission of his comments on the State party’s additional observations until 24 May 2016, in order to give him an opportunity to reflect in the comments the updated Eligibility Guidelines. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Considerations of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.4 As to the author’s claim under article 14 of the Covenant that he was unable to appeal the negative decision of the Board to a judicial body, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to aliens’ expulsion do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1) but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant.19 The Committee therefore concludes that this claim is inadmissible ratione materiae, under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee further notes that the author made an identical claim, i.e. that he was unable to appeal the negative decision of the Board to a judicial body, under article 13 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which this provision offers asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal to judicial bodies. 20 The Committee therefore concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 13 of the Covenant, and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims with respect to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant should be held inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation, as the author “has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication”. The Committee considers, however, that the author has adequately explained why he feared that forcible return to Afghanistan would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that, for the purpose of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 8.7 In the light of the above considerations, the Committee considers the communication admissible, insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 19 20 8 See, for example, X v. Denmark, para. 8.5. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62. See, for example, Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013), para. 6.4; and S.Z. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015), para. 7.12. See also, the Committee’s general comment No. 32, paras. 17 and 62.