CCPR/C/121/D/2612/2015 4.6 The State party summarizes the author’s statements concerning his compulsory military service in the interviews with the Danish Immigration Service (see para. 2.7 above) and maintains that, based on the author’s accounts, the Refugee Appeals Board found that he was not “wanted” by the Egyptian authorities and that his evasion of military service has had no real consequences for him. The author had also stated during the asylum proceedings that he had not experienced any problems obtaining a passport in 2008, nor had he experienced any problems obtaining a new passport from the Egyptian embassy in Rome in 2012. He had further stated, on the one hand, that the Egyptian embassy in Rome was not aware that he was not allowed to use his passport to leave the country and, on the other hand, that the embassy had indicated “Conscript situation. Draft age” in his passport. At the oral hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, the author was asked about his statement to the Swiss authorities that a passport had been issued to him in 2005 and that it was valid for two months because he was to perform compulsory military service. The author responded that passports had been issued to him in 2005 and 2008 and confirmed that the passport issued in 2005 had been valid for two months. When asked whether the passport issued to him in 2012 also had a brief period of validity because he was to perform compulsory military service, the author responded in the affirmative and stated that the normal validity of a passport was seven years, but that it appeared from page 4 or 5 of the passport issued in 2005 that it was valid for two months. In the new passport, the period of validity was given as either one or seven years. When asked how a passport with a normal period of validity could be issued to him in 2012, when that had not been possible in 2005, the author replied that the validity was the same. The author later stated that the passport issued in 2008 had a period of validity of seven years, it also had a stamp and it was written by hand that he was not allowed to leave the country without a permit. When asked whether the passport issued in 2005 had a normal period of validity, the author replied that he did not recall. Against that background, the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author had failed to render it probable in a credible manner that the Egyptian authorities were pursuing or would pursue him because of his draft evasion. The State party notes that, at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 28 April 2015, the author stated that he had had various small jobs in Cairo from 2005 to 2008, and that it appears from the case file that the author did not try to hide from the authorities between 2005 and 2008, the period during which he allegedly evaded military service. 4.7 The State party maintains that, according to the memorandum, the punishment for evading compulsory military service in Egypt depends on the situation and the relevant person’s age (see para. 2.7 above). It also appears from the memorandum that, in practice, persons who have not registered for compulsory military service and are not otherwise wanted by the military will receive considerably more lenient sentences than persons who are wanted by the military or persons who have forged documents. In that framework, persons older than 30 years of age who have not registered for compulsory military service but are not otherwise reported as wanted by the military will be sentenced under article 49 of the Military Conscription Law and, in most cases, if they are found guilty, the punishment will be a fine of 2,000 to 5,000 Egyptian pounds, but not imprisonment. Therefore, if the author is 30 years upon his return to Egypt, he will probably only be fined 2,000 to 5,000 Egyptian pounds. The State party also maintains that the consequences described for failure to register for compulsory military service in due time are not disproportionate relative to Danish legal tradition. Moreover, the facts that Egyptian legislation provides for long-term prison sentences — a provision that is seldom used — and that such a prison sentence might have to be served under conditions that are contrary to article 7 of the Covenant cannot lead the State party to assess the present case differently, as the author has failed to render it probable that he in particular would be at a special risk of receiving such a sentence. 4.8 The State party notes that, in the interviews with the Danish Immigration Service on 6 January, 25 April and 10 November 2014, the author stated that he sympathized with the Muslim Brotherhood and that he supported former Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi, but that he was not registered as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, nor had he personally performed any activities for the Muslim Brotherhood or in support of former President Mursi. The author also stated that he had not experienced any conflicts at any time in Egypt due to his political conviction. Accordingly, the Refugee Appeals Board found that he had 6