Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2623/2015 already monitored by the authorities, he or she could risk consequences upon return to Iran. The officer found that there was no reliable evidence that the author was monitored by Iranian authorities. The officer found that documentary evidence supported that ordinary converts to Christianity who are discreet about their faith are of little or no interest to the authorities, although they may experience some social and cultural ostracism. Since the author would not be public about his conversion, he would not face risk upon return. 4.9 The Federal Court dismissed the author’s judicial review application of the PRRA decision on 14 December 2017. The Court found it reasonable for the PRRA officer to have concluded that the author faced no personal risk since he did not carry out any activities related to his Christian faith in public, and did not have any official duties on behalf of the church. 4.10 The State party further submits that the communication is inadmissible due to being manifestly unfounded. Regarding the author’s claim of a violations of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, the State party argues that the author has not clearly stated what violations of the article has taken place, either on their own or in combination with the other articles. It argues that the author’s allegations of risk have been dealt with in multiple domestic proceedings. Each proceeding considered the facts and evidence and determined that the author would not be at risk if returned to Iran. 4.11 The State party submits that the author has not substantiated, even on a prima facie basis, his allegations with respect to his claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Neither the author’s personal profile nor his status as a failed asylum seeker places him at a real and personal risk of irreparable harm in Iran. The State party argues that, according to objective sources, “[a] conversion and an anonymous life as a converted Christian in itself do not lead to an arrest but if the conversion is followed up by other activities as for instance proselytizing and training others, the case differs…”. 2 Objective reports also state that “converted returnees who do not carry out activities related to Christianity upon return will not be of interest to the authorities”,3 except if the convert had been known by the authorities before leaving. Where an individual has come to the attention of the authorities previously for reasons other than their religion, then that in combination with their religion, may put them at increased risk.4 Those persons who return to Iran having converted while abroad, who do not actively seek to proselytize, and who do not publicly express their faith, may be able to continue practicing Christianity discreetly.5 In the case of A. v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that converts who have not come to the attention of the authorities, including for reasons other than their conversion, and who practiced their faith discreetly, do not face a real risk of ill-treatment upon return. 6 Objective country reports indicate that there are 285,000 Christians in Iran, and there may be many more. While the majority of Christians are ethnic Armenians, there are Protestant denominations, including evangelical groups in Iran, with an estimated Protestant community of less than 10,000. 7 4.12 The State party argues that the author’s personal profile does not support the conclusion that there is a real risk of irreparable harm if he were returned to Iran. There is no evidence that Iranian authorities are monitoring the author because of his conversion to Christianity while he resided in Greece, nor is there any evidence that authorities are monitoring him for any other reason. The author’s own evidence demonstrates that he can return to Iran without incident. If the author had been of interest to the Iranian authorities, he would not have been able to enter and exit Iran, renew his passport in 2012, and he would not have been released from detention and without any harm. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Iran, House churches and converts, Danish Refugee Council, Danish Immigration Service, Copenhagen, February 2018, p.7. Ibid. p. 8. UK Visas & Immigration, Country Policy and Information Note, Iran: Christians and Christian converts, March 2018, section 2.2.3. UK Visas & Immigration, Country Policy and Information Note, Iran: Christians and Christian converts, March 2018, section 2.2.12. A. v. Switzerland, Application no. 60342/16, European Court of Human Rights, 19 December 2017, paras.43-36. U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report for 2016, Iran, section 1. 5