CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014 to be in need of protection due to his ethnicity as a Hazara, his young age and his interest in Christianity over a period of two years, which he has expressed to other Afghans. 7 3.2 The author also submitted that the land dispute with a powerful neighbour, an army general, and the fact that the author had no family in Afghanistan, put him at further risk of being subjected to torture or being killed. 3.3 Concerning the author’s interest in Christianity, the author submitted that he had spoken about it from the beginning of the asylum proceedings in Denmark and that he had not pretended to have great knowledge of his newfound religion, which at first merely gave him peace, but had ended up undertaking serious study of Christianity in order to be baptized. The author also enclosed a copy of a certificate of baptism, according to which he was baptized on 23 February 2014 in the Pentecostal Church of Rudkøbing. The author claimed that it would constitute a breach of article 18 of the Covenant if he were to be returned to Afghanistan, since he might thereby lose the right to choose his own religion and the right to exercise it. 3.4 In light of the above, the author concluded that his removal to Afghanistan would constitute a violation by Denmark of his rights under articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 3 October 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication, arguing that the communication was inadmissible due to non-substantiation of the author’s claims, or alternatively, was without merits. 4.2 The State party recalls that the author is an Afghan national, registered as having been born on 1 January 1994, who entered Denmark on 18 February 2013 without valid travel documents and applied for asylum the same day. On 30 August 2013, the Danish Immigration Service decided that the author was 19 years old, and his date of birth was registered as 1 January 1994. The author stated that he had been born on 1 January 1996. On 26 November 2013, the Immigration Service refused asylum to the author. On 11 February 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the refusal of the author’s asylum application by the Immigration Service. On 26 February 2014, the author submitted the communication to the Committee, claiming that it would constitute a violation of articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant to return him to Afghanistan. On 24 March 2014, the Ministry of Justice upheld the decision on the author’s age made by the Immigration Service. A forcible return of the author to Afghanistan was scheduled for 25 March 2014, but the return was cancelled. On 30 April 2014, an alert was recorded in respect of the author in the Danish Criminal Register for the purpose of his detention and return to Afghanistan, since he had failed to appear for deportation, despite having been summoned. The author was not to be found at the time of the submission of the State party’s observations and had gone into hiding from the Danish authorities. 4.3 The State party describes the relevant domestic law and procedures, including the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board, which it considers to be an independent, quasi-judicial body.8 It also points out the established procedures for assessing inconsistent statements by the asylum seeker that may impact on the asylum seeker’s credibility. 4.4 As regards articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication, because it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being deprived of his life or subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his return to Afghanistan. This part of the communication should be declared inadmissible as not being sufficiently substantiated. 7 8 The author claims that he falls within the risk groups as elaborated in the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan, published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on 6 August 2013, p. 67. See, for example, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. 3