CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014 conversion. In particular, it noted that those statements had been different on essential points, such as his family’s reaction to his conversion, the time of his first meeting with Z.A. and the time when he considered himself to have converted. Against that background, the Refugee Appeals Board was of the opinion that the author had not shown any interest in the Christian faith until after his application for asylum had been refused, and therefore the majority of the Board members found that his conversion had not been the result of a “natural development” within him. 6.5 The Danish Refugee Appeals Board has reopened other cases when essential new information has come to light after the initial Board hearing. The author’s communication to the Committee has not brought to light any essential new information. The author has also not identified any similarities between the cases that he cited — some of which appear unidentifiable — and his own case, nor has he pointed to any errors or omissions in the examination of his case or in the assessment of evidence by the Refugee Appeals Board. 6.6 When rendering its decision, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board took into account all relevant information. It recalls the Committee’s established jurisprudence,19 according to which considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and it is generally for States parties to review and evaluate facts and evidence, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In the present case, the author simply challenges the assessment and conclusions reached by the Refugee Appeals Board, without establishing that they were arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. The author has also failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. It took almost two years for the author to reply to the State party’s observations, without offering any new information. Against this background, the State party submits that the return of the author to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author. The Committee notes that the author unsuccessfully appealed against the negative asylum decision to the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, and that the State party does not challenge the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author. Therefore, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 As to the author’s claim that his ground for asylum based on his conversion to Christianity was considered only by one instance and was thus deprived of an appeal, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that this part of the communication is based on factually incorrect information and the author’s acknowledgement thereof. The Committee also notes that the author withdrew this part of his complaint and that he presented it as a complaint against the fact the Board’s decisions could not be contested before the domestic courts (see para. 5.3 above). 19 10 See A.S.M. and R.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014), para. 8.3; P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.3; N. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014), para. 6.6; K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), paras. 7.4 and 7.5; Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, para. 7.5; and Z v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014), para. 7.4.