CCPR/C/133/D/2458/2014 Advance unedited version they refused to help him. By denying his requests, the Board effectively barred him from proving his need for protection in Denmark. 3.3 The author further claims, that his right to a fair trial has been violated in a discriminatory manner, since he is an asylum seeker. In other than asylum cases, the right to hear a witness is granted under the Danish law. This situation has amounted to a violation of articles 2 and 26, in conjunction with article 14 of the Covenant. 3.4 The author feels offended by the State party’s allegation that he is not a true Christian. The Board inter alia observed as strange that the author started to write and post Christian material on the internet. If he could remain in Denmark, he would be baptised on 31 August 2014, as intended. For the last couple of days, he has been attending a Christian summer camp and he hopes to continue to practice his new religion. If he were deported to Afghanistan, he would not be able to practice as a Christian, he will face persecution and risk to be killed or tortured because he is considered as a ‘mortard’. The author’s deportation would result in a violation of his right to change his religion, and a threat to his life and wellbeing. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 10 March 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. 4.2 It recalls that the author has complained that the State party will breach its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant by returning him to Afghanistan and that articles 2, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant have been violated in connection with the consideration of his asylum application by the Danish authorities. 4.3 The State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible, or without merits. 4.4 As regards the principal facts, the Danish Immigration Service (DIS) refused asylum to the author on 30 April 2014. On 16 July 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board (Board) upheld the refusal by the DIS. On 31 July 2014, the author brought the case before the Committee, which was transmitted to the State party for observations on 9 September 2014. By letter of 22 September 2014, the author requested the Board to reopen the asylum proceedings. On 25 November 2014, the author was notified that his request to reopen the asylum proceedings in his case had been refused. The request for reopening was motivated by the author’s activities on a weblog, in which the author appeared by name and photo together with a person named E.A., who had been granted asylum as his claims were substantiated and his conversion was deemed genuine. The Board found no basis for reopening the case, nor any basis for extending the time limit for the author’s departure. In this regard, the Board considered that no substantial new information or views had been submitted, beyond the information available at the original hearing. On 8 August 2014, the author failed to report at the Sandholm Accommodation Centre, an asylum facility. As a result, the place of residence was registered as unknown. On 26 February 2015, the Danish Police confirmed that this was still the case. 4.5 The full account of the author’s statements during the asylum proceedings has been reflected in the Board’s decision of 16 July 2014 (annex 1). The Board, inter alia, could not accept the author’s statements on his asylum motives and the costs of his departure from Afghanistan and considered them as fabricated and escalating. Based on the response from Combined Team Uruzgan to the request of the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Board found as facts that the letters of recommendation produced by the author in support of his statement of having worked as an interpreter for the Australian forces in Afghanistan were fraudulent as no interpreter named M.N. had been employed in the periods stated, and that the persons who had signed the documents did not know the author, and had not been employed in the periods stated in the documents. Further, there was a spelling mistake on the ID card produced by the author in support of his statement of having worked at the camp. In addition, contrary to the author’s statement, the Australian authorities indicated that discarded uniforms and boots had not been given away in boxes to the interpreters employed. The Board also considered peculiar that the author left the country without his wife, who refused to divorce him, and that the family did not experience other problems as a result of 4