CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014 country.23 The Committee also notes the author’s statement regarding his conversion from Islam to Christianity, including his baptism and active participation in parish activities, and the alleged risk of persecution that he may face from his family and the authorities should he be returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 8.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (para. 12). The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 24 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 25 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.26 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in question in order to determine whether such a risk exists, 27 unless it can be established that the assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.28 8.4 The Committee notes the finding of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board that the author failed to substantiate that he would be at a risk of persecution or abuse by the Iranian authorities as a result of his refusal to continue to work for the Basij, and that he lacked credibility. The Committee also notes that the majority of the Refugee Appeals Board members found that the author had failed to substantiate that his conversion was genuine, despite the existence of a certificate of baptism, witness depositions and letters of support. In this connection, the Committee observes that the author first declared that the said conversation took place after the negative decision by the Danish Immigration Service, but then affirmed that it had actually taken place before that decision (see para. 4.12). The Committee also notes that the majority of the Board members found inconsistencies in the author’s statements in regard to his family’s reaction to conversion and the time of his first meeting with Z.A. The Committee further notes that when informed about a new ground for asylum based on the author’s conversion, the Refugee Appeals Board decided to transmit the case back to the Immigration Service for reconsideration, which allowed the author to have this new ground assessed at the usual two regular degrees of jurisdiction in asylum matters, and that the issue was analysed in detail in the decisions adopted. 8.5 The Committee considers that when an asylum seeker submits that he or she has converted to another religion after his or her initial asylum request has been dismissed in the country of asylum, it may be reasonable for an in-depth examination of the circumstances of the conversion to be carried out by the authorities. 29 However the test remains whether, regardless of the sincerity of the conversion, there are substantial grounds for believing that such conversion may have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to create a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, even when it is found that the reported conversion is not sincere, the authorities should proceed to assess whether, in the circumstances of the case, 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 12 See para. 5.1.1 of “Country information and guidance: Iran: Illegal exit”, where a Head of the Passport and Visa Department is quoted as stressing that “the Iranian Constitution allows for Iranians to live where they wish. It is not a criminal offence in the Islamic Republic of Iran for any Iranian to ask for asylum in another country… Approximately 60 per cent of Iranians who have asylum in other countries travel back and forth between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other countries.” See K. v. Denmark, para. 7.3; P.T. v. Denmark, para. 7.2; and X v. Denmark, para. 9.2. See X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. Ibid. See also X v. Denmark, para. 9.2. See Pillai et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/101/D/1763/2008), para. 11.4; and Lin v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. See, for example, K. v. Denmark, para. 7.4. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Guidelines on international protection: religion-based refugee claims under article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”, para. 34. Available at www.unhcr.org/afr/40d8427a4.pdf.