CCPR/C/133/D/2458/2014 Advance unedited version for the Afghan authorities and his conversion was not known to impact the enjoyment of the author’s rights under article 18 in Afghanistan. Recalling its jurisprudence that article 18 does not have extraterritorial application, unless a risk of its violation would represent an irreparable harm such as that contemplated in articles 6 and 7,38 the Committee considers also the author’s claims under article 18 of the Covenant to be inadmissible, due to insufficient substantiation, pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; (b) 38 12 That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional That the decision be transmitted to the State party and to the author. See e.g. communications Ch.H.O. v. Canada (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012), para. 9.5; I.K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014), para. 8.5; and C.L. and Z.L. v. Denmark, (CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016), para. 7.4.