CCPR/C/133/D/2458/2014 Advance unedited version why he was in great danger upon return to Afghanistan. It was due to mere chance that he managed to escape again after returning to Afghanistan. 5.5 The Refugee Appeals Board and the Danish government nevertheless rejected the author’s sur place conversion as not credible. However, such rejection was done in the same way as in the case of Mr. Hossini. The Board only considered, whether or not they believed that the author was baptised in order to get a residence permit or not. As they concluded that he was baptized only in order to obtain asylum, they forgot to consider what would be the consequences for him on return to his country of origin, which is the core argument in the Hossini case.24 In that case, the Committee recalled that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk that a person might face if deported, and considered that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the author would face as a perceived Christian in the country of origin, rather than relying mainly on inconsistencies in statements. The Committee noted in particular that the Board did not assess whether the author’s behaviour and activities in connection with, or to justify, his conversion, including his baptism, his active participation in the parish, his knowledge of Christianity, and sharing information with his family of his conversion, could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put him at risk of irreparable harm. 5.6 The author annexed a report regarding another case 25; when the Danish Police tried to deport an Afghan citizen on 14 September 2016, who stated in the airport of Kabul that he had become Christian during his stay in Denmark. The Afghan officials then stated that he was not safe and the Danish Police had to bring him back to Copenhagen. Subsequently, the Danish Police tried to convince the Afghan officials that the conversion was not genuine, but was informed that this was not the problem. As that person shouted out at the airport he had converted to Christianity, his life would be in danger because people standing by had overheard this. He would thus be killed after leaving the airport. 5.7 It follows from this, that in February 2017, when the author was deported, the Danish authorities were well aware of the risk of persecution in Afghanistan, whether or not the author was a real convert or not. The Board and the Danish government thus need to explain in what way an assessment of such risks was made. According to the decision by the Board, it is only stated that the author’s statements about his Christianity on the internet made his conversion even more suspicious. Consequently, the author requests the Committee to conclude that his removal by Denmark was in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Author’s further comments 6.1 On 28 December 2018, the author’s counsel submitted comments on the State party’s observations, initially dated 26 October 2017. He submitted, inter alia, that the claims of a violation of article 14 were in fact intended to be the claims of a violation of article 13 of the Covenant. 6.2 The author recalls the alleged violation of articles 6 or 7, 13, 18 and 26 of the Covenant, pointing out to the author’s Christian life in Denmark, and the worsening situation in Afghanistan since the deportation of the author in 2014.26 The author applied for asylum and his asylum application was rejected in by the Danish Immigration Service in 2011,27 and by the Danish Refugee Board in January 2012.28 6.3 As regards his claims of a violation of articles 6 and 7, the author submits that he was baptized in a Christian Church after having attended Church services and a Christian training programme since June 2013.29 As a former Muslim from Afghanistan, he risks persecution 24 25 26 27 28 29 8 Fn. 17. A report by the Danish officials of 15 September 2016 about the event, which resulted in the man being returned to Denmark. The dates in the author’s submission are not correct, since he mistakenly referred to the facts of another case (see para. 7.2 in that regard). See fn. 28. See fn. 28. See fn. 28.