CCPR/C/125/D/2439/2014 the Committee on 16 October 2014 as additional information were thus taken into account when the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen proceedings. 4.21 As to the documents related to the sale of satellite dishes by the author, given that the author’s statement regarding his conflict prior to his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran must be set aside as non-credible, it cannot be accepted as a fact that attempts were made to prosecute the author in that connection. Those documents must therefore be regarded as having been fabricated for the occasion. The State party also draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that the author has submitted two conflicting convictions regarding the same matter, namely, the sale of satellite dishes. 28 Furthermore, it is odd that the author submitted the conviction from July 2013 only after he brought his case before the Committee on 4 July 2014. During an entire year, the author did not find any reason to request that the Refugee Appeals Board reopen his asylum case based on the conviction and the sentence pronounced in July 2013. The author has not provided a reasonable explanation for this. 4.22 In conclusion, when rendering its decision, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board took into account all relevant information. The present communication to the Committee has not brought to light any new information substantiating that the author will risk persecution or asylum-relevant abuse upon his return to Iran. During domestic proceedings, the author had the opportunity to present his views, both in writing and orally, with the assistance of a legal counsel, and the Board conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case. In its refusal to reopen the author’s asylum case, the Refugee Appeals Board took into account the additional information that the author has submitted to the Committee. The author has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. He is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. However, the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of facts made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances in the author’s case. There is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessments made by the Refugee Appeals Board, according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be at risk of being subjected to persecution or asylumrelevant abuse if he is returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Against this background, the return of the author to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his comments of 4 February 2016,29 the author raises a violation of articles 7 and 13 of the Covenant. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, under sharia law, it is a crime to leave Islam, hence he fears persecution on return. 5.2 Under article 13 of the Covenant, as part of a fair trial, any person should have the right to appeal on matters concerning life and death. Yet, the conversion of the author was never examined by the Danish Immigration Service; thus, the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 16 January 2013 on his conversion was not a decision pronounced in appeal. On the contrary, the Board was the first, and also the last, Danish administrative authority to examine whether his conversion was genuine. 5.3 The decision of the Board of 16 January 2013 is also manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. It is arbitrary in the sense of differential treatment. The author was baptised after the decision of the Danish Immigration Service, but before the decision of the Board. He 28 29 As also appears from the decision made by the Refugee Appeals Board on 25 November 2014. The author attached a letter issued by the International Christian Centre in Copenhagen on 9 January 2016, in which it is attested that the author had participated in biblical classes since January 2013 (and since mid-2015, on a weekly basis). On 8 February 2016, the author provided another letter issued by a pastor of the Apostle Church on 7 February 2016, in which it is confirmed that the author has been part of the community since 2013, but that since 2014, he has been “a regular part of the church service and the community”. The two letters also attest to the author’s participation in three summer camps at a Lutheran Mission College, in 2013, 2014 and 2015. 9