CCPR/C/125/D/2439/2014 governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 24 Against this background, this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.13 On the merits, the author has failed to establish that his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. In its general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, the Committee discussed both negative and positive components of the right to life, namely, the right of a person not to be deprived of his life arbitrarily or unlawfully by the State or its agents and the obligation of the State party to adopt measures that are conducive to protecting life. Under the jurisprudence of the Committee, States parties are under an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, whether in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 25 The obligations of the State party under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in sections 7 (1) and (2) of the Danish Aliens Act, according to which a residence permit will be issued to an alien if he or she risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to his or her country of origin. 4.14 During the proceedings before the Danish immigration authorities, the author’s statements on his grounds for asylum, namely, the sale of satellite dishes and his conversion to Christianity, have continuously been elaborated and altered fundamentally and considerably. The Refugee Appeals Board rejected his new statements as being noncredible and fabricated for the purpose of giving him a (fictitious) ground for asylum. Thus, in its decision of 16 January 2013, the Board was unable to find as a fact the author’s statement that he had been persecuted prior to his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The author only mentioned that he had experienced problems with the authorities after his detention at the police station to his assigned counsel immediately prior to the Board hearing of 16 January 2013 and, subsequently, during that hearing. In contrast, in both his asylum application and his statement to the Danish Immigration Service, he stated that he had had no problems with the authorities after his detention and during the time leading up to his departure. The author also made inconsistent statements regarding his passport and his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party therefore agrees with the Refugee Appeals Board that the author has made elaborate and inconsistent statements about this part of his asylum ground, for which reason his statement cannot be accepted as a fact. The author presented no essential new information about his situation prior to his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran during the proceedings before the Committee. 4.15 In its decision of 16 January 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board also considered that the conversion of the author was not genuine. According to the author’s own statement, only his friend and possibly a couple of other persons in Denmark knew about it. The determination as to whether the activities of the author during his stay in Denmark derive from a genuine Christian persuasion depends, in particular, on the assessment of the author’s statements about his religious persuasion compared with the other circumstances relied upon in the case. This approach is in line both with paragraph 95 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and with paragraph 34 of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 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, in which it is stated, inter alia, that “where individuals convert after their departure from the country of origin, this may have the effect of creating a sur place claim. In such situations, particular 24 25 X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 8.5, and X and X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 6.3. A.A.I. and A.H.A. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014), para. 6.5, and X v. Denmark, para. 9.2. 7