CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014 or social origin, property, birth or other status. Against this background, the State party submits that articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant were not violated in connection with the hearing of the author’s asylum case by the Danish authorities, whether read independently or in conjunction with article 2 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his comments of 18 November 2016, the author maintains that his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would breach articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. He submits that his allegations are duly substantiated and asserts that he fled the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his opposition to the Government — he refused to work for the Basij — and that he also fears persecution on return because he converted to Christianity in Denmark. Since he left the Islamic Republic of Iran, the level of persecution of those opposing the Government or those who violate sharia law has not changed. The author also recalls that the decision of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board was not unanimous, and that his claim cannot therefore be considered as manifestly unfounded. Some members of the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the existence of a threat to his life, which seems to clearly establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility for articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 5.2 The author also considers that the communication should be declared admissible in respect of article 13 of the Covenant, because as part of a fair trial, any person should have the right to appeal on matters concerning life and death. Moreover, since all other decisions by any board under Danish law can be appealed before the Danish court system, the author has been subjected to discrimination under article 26 of the Covenant. The author alleges that there are many court-like boards under Danish law which make legal decisions, but all those decisions can be appealed before the courts in accordance with section 63 of the Constitution of Denmark. The State party has not been able to mention any other body or board governed by a similar provision as that contained in section 56 (8) of the Aliens Act. Thus, his claim under article 26 of the Covenant should also be declared admissible. 5.3 Regarding the State party’s argument that the complaints under articles 2, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible for abuse of the right of submission, the author agrees that the Danish Immigration Service did take the issue of conversion into consideration. He thus acknowledges that in the initial communication he mistakenly argued that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board failed to allow transmittal of the case to the Immigration Service as the first instance, and agrees that there is no violation with regard to the issue of transmitting the case back to the Immigration Service. However, he submits that his allegations under these articles should be held admissible, given that the Refugee Appeals Board’s decisions cannot be contested before the domestic courts. He affirms that the State party has not disputed that it is not possible to appeal against the Board’s decisions before the courts. 5.4 As regards the merits, the author contests the position of the State party that “credibility” considerations are at the core of the refugee assessment and that the reality of the situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran is therefore of minor importance. It is a fact that the author has never had a passport issued by the Iranian authorities and that he fled the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally. It is also a fact that he was baptized in Denmark and that he demonstrated particular knowledge about the Christian religion. This was not disputed by the Danish authorities. Therefore, he will be questioned upon his arrival in the Islamic Republic of Iran and punished for his illegal departure. The author affirms that already in the airport there is a special court that sentences Iranian citizens who fled the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally. In this connection, his former membership of the Basij will be discovered, and he will be interrogated further about his stay in a Western country and about his conversion to Christianity. 5.5 The author submits that a minority of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board members wanted to grant him protection, while the majority used the rejection of his first asylum ground as non-credible to also reject his new, sur place motive as non-credible. He therefore considers that the majority of the members of the Refugee Appeals Board dismissed his second ground for asylum because they did not believe his first ground. He submits that this stands in great contrast to a number of cases before the Committee, where 8