CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014 written material, and took into account the material forwarded by the author’s counsel when making its decision. However, the Board considered that there was no basis for granting the author a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act as the author’s Christian persuasion could not be deemed genuine. The author had stated to the Board that he had sought out the church in Greece for food and peace, that when he came to Denmark, a year or so had passed during which time the author had not actively sought information about Christianity or tried to get to church, and that he only established contact with a pastor two weeks before the Board hearing. The State party observes that the author’s letter of 26 February 2014 to the Committee contained a certificate of baptism stating that the author had been baptized on 23 February 2014 in the Pentecostal Church of Rudkøbing. The Board considered the author’s Christian activities in its decision of 11 February 2014; the State party submits that a certificate of baptism dated 12 days after the Board’s decision cannot lead to a different assessment. It should be noted on this point that the author was baptized and had a certificate of baptism issued three days before he brought his complaint before the Committee and one month before his scheduled forcible return. The author also stated at the Board hearing on 11 February 2014 that, at a meeting between the author and his counsel prior to the Board hearing, his counsel had phoned a Christian acquaintance who had contacts with refugees and had asked him to contact a third individual and to send the author a link to a website attesting that the author had established contact with a Danish church through his counsel. Moreover, in its decision of 11 February 2014, the Board was not able to establish it as a fact that people in the area of the author’s home town had become aware that he had gone to church in Greece. The author has also stated that he did not understand what was said in the church in Greece. Furthermore, at the date of the Board hearing, the author did not understand what pastors in Denmark were saying. Nine or ten days prior to the Board hearing, he had received a Bible in Farsi, which he had studied. He also admitted that he had been able to communicate only with few persons because he knew only a little Farsi, and that he was able to read Farsi, but had problems understanding some expressions and concepts. 4.11 According to the information available, the author was baptized 12 days after the Refugee Appeals Board hearing, at a time when the author had merely been in contact with a Danish pastor for slightly under one month, when he did not understand what was being said in the Danish churches and when he had attempted to study a Bible not written in his native language. The State party further observes that the author’s alleged new faith has not been demonstrated in external activities other than his baptism on 23 February 2014, and that he admitted to the Immigration Service and the Board that his relationship with Christianity was very personal and secret. Moreover, the author went missing after the Board hearing; the Danish police therefore recorded an alert in respect of the author in the criminal register on 30 April 2014. The author was still not to be found and remained in hiding from the Danish authorities at that point. In view of the timing of events and the general circumstances of the case, the State party considers that the author has failed to substantiate his alleged conversion to Christianity as genuine. 9 Finally, the State party observes that, in the European Court of Human Rights judgment of 8 July 2014 in M.E. v. Denmark (application No. 58363/10), the Court expressed its opinion on the examination of a similar case by the Danish asylum authorities, considering it to have complied with the due process guarantees as the applicant had been represented by a lawyer, he had been given the opportunity to submit written observations and documents, and his arguments had been duly considered. 4.12 On the basis of the above, the State party submits that it will not constitute a violation of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant to return the author to Afghanistan, and that he will not risk any violation of his rights under article 18 of the Covenant as a consequence of his alleged conversion to Christianity. In any circumstances, the State party cannot be held 9 The State party refers to “Afghanistan: Situasjonen for kristne og konvertitter”, a report published by Landinfo on 4 September 2013 on “converts of convenience” (see pp. 19 and 22), indicating that several sources have stated that, even if it becomes known in the country of origin that the relevant person has indicated conversion as a ground for asylum in another country, this does not mean that the person concerned will become vulnerable upon his or her return, since Afghans have great understanding for compatriots who try everything to obtain a residence permit in Europe. 5