CCPR/C/125/D/2439/2014 alleged risk to his integrity is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has adequately explained the reasons why he fears that his forcible return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would result in a risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant owing to his conversion to Christianity. Therefore, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 7 and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that returning him to the Islamic Republic of Iran would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. He alleged that he would face persecution by the Iranian authorities because he had converted from Islam to Christianity. 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 37 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 38 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.39 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, 40 unless it can be established that the assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.41 8.4 The Committee notes the finding of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board that the author failed to substantiate that he would be at risk of persecution or abuse by the Iranian authorities as a result of his conversion, of the alleged judgments issued in absentia by the Iranian courts, of his participation in demonstrations in Denmark and of the fact that he does not hold a valid Iranian passport. The Committee also notes that the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author had failed to substantiate that his conversion was genuine, despite the existence of a certificate of baptism and letters of support. In this connection, the Committee observes the inconsistencies found by the Board in the author’s statements. 8.5 In this regard, 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 the States parties to conduct an in-depth examination of the circumstances of the conversion.42 However, the test for the Committee 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 37 38 39 40 41 42 12 K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.3; P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.2; and X v. Denmark, para. 9.2. X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. Ibid. See also X v. Denmark, para. 9.2. 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.