CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board,3 as well as the legislation applying to asylum proceedings. 4 It then submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility under articles 2, 6, 7, 13 and 26 of the Covenant, in the absence of substantial grounds for believing that he is in danger of being deprived of his life or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, or that those provisions have been violated in connection with the consideration of the author’s asylum case by the Danish authorities. These parts of the communication are therefore manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.3 As far as article 14 of the Covenant is concerned, the State party recalls the Committee’s practice of considering that proceedings relating to the expulsion of an alien do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1), but are governed by article 13, of the Covenant. 5 Against this background, this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.4 The author’s complaint under articles 2, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant is an abuse of the right of submission. The author’s argument that his rights under these articles have been violated because his conversion was considered only at one instance, by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, is not correct. In May 2013 the Refugee Appeals Board transmitted the case to the Danish Immigration Service for reconsideration, based on new information related to the author’s conversion to Christianity, and on 23 December 2013 the Immigration Service issued a new decision on the matter. The author’s asylum claim based on conversion has therefore been considered on two occasions. Furthermore, the author only attached to his communication the decision of the Immigration Service dated 4 January 2013 but not that of the Immigration Service dated 23 December 2013, while the author’s counsel for the present communication also represented him before the Refugee Appeals Board on 27 March 2014. In that capacity, he had access to all the decisions adopted at the different instances. Moreover, in his brief prepared for the purposes of the Board hearing on 27 March 2014, 6 the author’s counsel referred to the content of both decisions of the Immigration Service. 4.5 A correct statement of the facts, comprising information on the original decision made by the Danish Immigration Service, the subsequent transmittal of the case for reconsideration, the new interview, and the new decision made by the Immigration Service on 23 December 2013, is also included in the grounds for the decision made by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board on 27 March 2014, which was delivered to the author and his counsel at the Board hearing. Against this background, the author’s allegation that the authorities have violated articles 2, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant in connection with the consideration of the author’s alleged conversion to Christianity should be declared inadmissible, because it relies on a factually incorrect basis and constitutes an abuse of the right of submission under rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.6 Regarding the merits of the communication, the author has failed to establish that his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and that articles 2, 13 or 26 of the Covenant have been violated in connection with the hearing of his asylum case. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, where both negative and positive components of article 6 of the Covenant have been discussed — that is, the right of a person not to be deprived of his life arbitrarily or unlawfully by the State or its agents, as well as the obligation of the State 3 4 5 6 4 See Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. The State party refers to sections 7 (1)–(3) and 31 (1)–(2) of the Aliens Act. The State party refers to X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 8.5; and Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 6.3. The State party contends that the brief reads as follows: “It is observed that the case has been remitted for reconsideration by the Danish Immigration Service as my client has converted to Christianity after the original refusal of asylum by the Danish Immigration Service. In addition to his original ground for seeking asylum based on his country of origin, my client now also has a sur place asylum claim based on a risk of persecution because he has abandoned Islam.”