CCPR/C/121/D/2594/2015 city in the country — and appears to be a very low-profile individual who has never actively participated in any public debate apart from sharing a few posts on Facebook. The State party adds that, although K.S. gave a detailed account of his situation in the asylum proceedings, he did not claim a fear of persecution due to his agnostic persuasion until 17 November 2014, in the context of his request that his asylum proceedings be reopened. According to the background information available, he would not be at risk in failing to take part in religious Islamic traditions and rites.15 4.7 Finally, with regard to the authors’ allegations concerning the threats received from the sister’s former husband, the State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board considered the allegations not credible since the authors had not proved that they had received any specific and serious threats, and since those grounds for asylum had not been raised previously by K.S. in the context of the Danish Immigration Service interviews or the Board hearing. Also, the State party notes that the existence of a restraining order against the former husband due to a spousal conflict does not render probable that the authors’ rights enshrined under article 7 would be at risk of being violated if returned to Afghanistan. 4.8 The State party requests that interim measures be lifted in the light of the inexistence of irreparable harm to the authors in case of deportation. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In their submissions of 11 November 2015, the authors claim that the State party has made an erroneous assessment of the evidence in the case, in determining both the authors’ lack of credibility and the inexistence of a risk of a violation of article 7. 5.2 The authors contend that, in its decision of 23 June 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board relied primarily on an anonymous email to the Danish Immigration Service to justify the authors’ alleged lack of credibility with regard to the family conflict. 5.3 With regard to K.S’s religious stance, the author has consistently stated his conviction since his first interview, and Danish authorities have acknowledged his disaffiliation from Islam. He is likely to express his conviction if returned to Afghanistan. This can be expressed implicitly, for example, by failing to participate in religious events and practices, and he may face persecution as a result. The authors note that, according to the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in a note on Afghanistan, 16 converts from Islam are in general at a real risk of persecution in Afghanistan and should therefore be granted asylum unless there is clear evidence that a particular individual would not be at risk. The authors note that atheists face a stronger condemnation than converts. The male author entered Denmark at the age of 17 and has become more aware of his agnostic conviction since then, including by posting antireligious content on Facebook. 5.4 As regards M.S., if returned, she would be without any network, which would put her at risk in the light of her age and her mental health condition. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that their removal from Denmark to Afghanistan would expose them to a risk of a violation of their rights under article 7 of the 15 16 6 The State party cites the three reports by Landinfo relied upon by the Board (see footnote 6 above). Available from www.refworld.org/docid/51b702414.html.