CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014 4.5 The State party considers that the author’s alleged conversion to Christianity cannot be deemed genuine, and finds that the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that, following a return to Afghanistan, he would risk any violation of his rights under article 18 as a consequence of his alleged conversion to Christianity. This part of the communication should therefore be considered inadmissible as manifestly illfounded. The State party also observes that the author is seeking to apply the obligations under article 18 in an extraterritorial manner, and submits that it cannot be held responsible for violations of article 18 expected to be committed by another State party outside the territory and jurisdiction of Denmark. The State party argues that the Committee has never considered a complaint on its merits regarding the deportation of a person who feared violation of provisions other than articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant in the receiving State. In the State party’s view, extraditing, deporting, expelling or otherwise removing a person who fears having his or her rights under, for example, article 18 of the Covenant violated by another State party will not cause such irreparable harm as is contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, this part of the communication should also be rejected as inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae, pursuant to rule 96 (d) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, read together with rule 96 (a) of the Committee’s rules of procedure and article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.6 Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party submits that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that it would constitute a violation of articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant to return the author to Afghanistan. 4.7 The Refugee Appeals Board took a decision on 11 February 2014 not to grant a residence permit to the author, pursuant to section 7 (1) or 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, on the basis of a procedure during which the author had the opportunity to present his views to the Board both in writing and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel. 4.8 The State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board found that it could not be ruled out that the author and his family had had a land dispute with a neighbour in Afghanistan, and that the author had consequently hit the neighbour’s son on the leg using a spade. However, the Board found that the land dispute was not of such a nature or intensity as to give reason to assume that the author would be at a real risk of abuse from his neighbour if the author were returned to Afghanistan. The Board has assessed whether the author as an asylum seeker has a well-founded fear of being subjected to specific, individual persecution of a certain severity if he were returned to his country of origin, and came to a negative conclusion. The State party agrees with the Board that the land dispute relied upon by the author was not of such a nature or intensity that the author would be at a real risk of abuse from his neighbour if the author were returned to his country of origin. There were no sufficient grounds established for the author to obtain a residence permit. The State party observes that, according to the author’s own statement, the neighbour did not demand the author’s family’s land until mid-2011, four years after the father’s death in 2007, the author merely hit the neighbour’s son on the leg using a spade, the neighbour took all the family’s property after the author’s departure, the neighbour’s son has died since the author’s departure, the author’s family has subsequently left Afghanistan, and the land dispute took place three years ago. 4.9 The State party finds that the fact that the author is young, is without family and is an ethnic Hazara from Ghazni Province cannot in itself justify the author being entitled to international protection. In reference to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan, of 6 August 2013, the State party submits that the author does not belong to a minority ethnic group in the area of his residence, as Hazaras constitute 25 per cent of the population in Ghazni Province. Moreover, the author is a young unmarried male of working age with no health problems. He stated when interviewed by the Immigration Service on 1 November 2013 that neither he nor anybody in his family had been involved in politics. The author has further stated that he has never experienced any problems with the Afghan authorities. Accordingly, the author is inconspicuous. 4.10 As regards the author’s Christian activities and persuasion, the Refugee Appeals Board considered the statements made by the author during the Board hearing and in the 4