CCPR/C/121/D/2612/2015 Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood on Facebook and Twitter since 2011 could not, in itself, lead to a different assessment because it was not plausible that the Egyptian authorities were aware of those profiles and who was behind them, since the profiles were created under a different name and contained few pictures of the author. The Immigration Service referred the author’s case to the Refugee Appeals Board for the final decision, in accordance to section 53 (a) (2) of the Danish Aliens Act. 2.10 On 28 April 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the author’s request for asylum. It found that the author had not rendered it probable in a credible manner that the Egyptian authorities would pursue him because of his draft evasion, as established in the decision of the Danish Immigration Service. The Board noted that the author had not been a member of any political or religious association or organization, nor had he been politically active in any other way; and that there had not been any inquiries from the military to his family who still lived in Egypt. With regard to the credibility assessment of the author, the Board attached importance to the fact that the author had previously entered Denmark, stated that he was a stateless Palestinian, and submitted a very different asylum request. Against that background, the Board concluded that the author had not rendered it probable that his latest allegedly illegal departure and his alleged inconspicuous support for the Muslim Brotherhood might independently cause him to be subjected to persecution or abuse so as to justify asylum under section 7 (1) or (2) of the Aliens Act. The author claims that he has exhausted all domestic remedies. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that Denmark would violate its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant by deporting him to Egypt where he would be exposed to at least seven years of imprisonment and torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in prison.3 He claims that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board considered that he had failed to render probable in a credible manner that the Egyptian authorities would persecute him if he returned, but did not explain in detail the basis for its findings. 3.2 The author points out that he did not claim that avoiding the military service in itself had consequences on him other than on the two occasions when he was detained by the police. However, since he left the country illegally twice, he would be considered a “repeat draft evader” and sentenced to at least seven years in prison for draft evasion. 4 He claims that, although the Board’s findings that one would not be at risk of persecution by the mere fact of being an ordinary supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood are correct, in his case it should be considered in the context of his being a draft evader and his opposition to President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, which would result in persecution by the authorities. 3.3 He states that reports by States and well-known non-governmental organizations (NGOs) indicate that prison conditions in Egypt are harsh and can be life threatening, with overcrowding, poor sanitation, a lack of health care and generally unhealthy conditions being particular problems.5 In addition, the human rights situation in Egypt has deteriorated since 2015 after President Al-Sisi’s administration came to power. 3.4 In assessing the credibility in his asylum request, the Refugee Appeals Board took into account the information that he had provided in his first request under a different name. In that connection, the author submits that since he had acknowledged that he provided a false identity and false information in his first asylum request in Denmark and explained to the Danish authorities why he had done so, the Board should not have taken that information into account in its decision of 28 April 2015. 3 4 5 4 The author refers to, inter alia, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on International Protection No. 10: Claims to Refugee Status related to Military Service within the context of Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (12 November 2014); United Kingdom: Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Egypt (October 2014); and Human Rights Watch, “Egypt: Rash of deaths in custody” (21 January 2015). The author refers to the memorandum from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (see para. 2.8 above). See footnote 3.