CCPR/C/125/D/2439/2014 the circumstances of the case, the behaviour and activities of the asylum seeker in connection with, or to justify, his or her conversion, such as attending a church, being baptised or participating in proselytizing activities, could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put him or her at risk of irreparable harm. 43 8.6 In the present case, the Committee observes that it is uncontested that the author was baptised on 16 December 2012 and participates in church activities. However, the Board observed that he had almost no knowledge of the Christian faith. The Board also considered that the author had failed to establish that his conversion was genuine, on the basis of his general credibility and of inconsistencies in his statements about the moment when he decided to become a Christian and about his involvement in church activities. The Board also took note of the author’s statement that only his friend and possibly a couple of other persons in Denmark knew about his conversion. Thus, the State party considers that there is no risk that the Iranian authorities will become aware of the author’s conversion if he enters the Islamic Republic of Iran without a valid passport because his conversion is not genuine. 8.7 With respect to the other allegations brought by the author, the Committee observes that the Danish authorities have analysed the summonses and the judgments allegedly handed down by the Iranian courts and expressed reservations as to their authenticity, considering that the convictions alleged by the author had been fabricated. The Danish authorities have equally analysed the photos uploaded by the author on his Facebook account and the photos taken during his participation in some demonstrations in front of the Iranian Embassy in Copenhagen, but considered that the author had failed to demonstrate that he had become a person of interest for the Iranian authorities following those actions and events. 8.8 The Committee further notes that, although the author contests the assessment and findings of the Danish authorities as to the risk of harm he faces in the Islamic Republic of Iran, he has not presented any evidence to substantiate his allegations under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements available when evaluating the risk faced by the author and that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decisionmaking process. The Committee further considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party authorities and with their decision not to reopen his case, he has not shown that the decision of 25 November 2014 was arbitrary or manifestly erroneous or that it amounted to a denial of justice. Consequently, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the author have not adduced sufficient grounds for demonstrating that he would run a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In view thereof, the Committee is not able to conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant would be violated if he were removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it do not permit it to conclude that the author’s expulsion to the Islamic Republic of Iran would, if implemented, violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 43 S.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014), para. 11.8. 13