CCPR/C/133/D/2623/2015 Advance unedited version 4.13 The State party further argues that the author’s communication does not demonstrate that, if he were to return to Iran, he would not be discreet about his conversion, as he was in Canada. The author’s own evidence demonstrates that he did not attempt to proselytize in Canada, including to this close friends. Rather the author was discreet about his faith, and would continue to be discreet in Iran. The author was discreet when he returned to renew his passport and was questioned about his conversion. The author has not demonstrated that he is at personal risk due to proselytizing. The author’s pastor did not state that he is required to proselytise his faith. Given the author’s lack of evidence of proselytizing in Canada, and his lack of an official role within his church, and no evidence that he would seek to have an official role in a church in Iran – which would put him at a higher risk – the author has failed to establish that he would be at personal risk in Iran because of his conversion to Christianity. 4.14 The State party argues that the author has also failed to establish that he would face risk as a failed asylum seeker. Objective country reports indicate that Iranians who return with passports from a long stay abroad will not be an issue as long as the person left the country legally.8 4.15 The State party notes the author’s claims that CBSA officers allegedly threatened and intimidated him. It argues that these claims are completely unsubstantiated and inadmissible. It categorically denies these allegations, and notes that the author did not raise these allegations before domestic-decision makers. 4.16 Regarding the author’s claims under article 18 of the Covenant, the State party notes that he has not alleged that the State party itself has directly violated his Covenant rights. Rather, the author’s argument is based on the treatment that he alleges he could face upon his return to Iran. The State party submits that even if the author could establish that he would be subject to discrimination or ill-treatment in Iran for his religious beliefs, this would not engage Canada’s obligations under article 18 of the Covenant. It is only if the ill-treatment which the author might face was of such a serious nature so as to engage rights protected by articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant that the State party’s obligations under the Covenant would be at issue. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 8 April 2019, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He reiterates that neither he nor his counsel were informed of the Refugee Board’s decision to hold an abandonment hearing on his asylum application. He was therefore unable to attend said hearing. He notes that the State Party alleges that he has failed to exhaust domestic remedies due to him not challenging the finding that he was inadmissible in Canada. The author claims that he was not informed of this decision and he additionally notes that he does not have a criminal conviction in Denmark. He was merely held in immigration detention there. He notes that the State party authorities did not present any evidence that he had been convicted in Denmark, and he notes that should he have been, it would have been contrary to article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention which forbids the punishment of asylum seekers for illegal entry, via use of false passports. He submits that he has exhausted domestic remedies with respect to the inadmissibility finding, adding that the inadmissibility finding has nothing to do with a risk assessment and whether he should be granted status due to his risk. He submits that an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is not an effective remedy. 5.2 The author argues that he submitted extensive evidence to support his claim in his PRRA application, including his brother’s burial certificate, which confirmed that he had been executed by hanging in jail by the Iranian authorities. He also included his baptism certificate and other photos and documents confirming his conversion as well as a letter from his pastor stating that the author was a witnessing and evangelizing member of the congregation. The author notes that his name and conversion to Christianity had been made public on the internet by church activists who were trying to prevent his deportation. He argues that this in itself established, prima facie, a risk upon return to Iran. He notes that the 8 6 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Responses to Information Requests, Treatment of Failed Refugee Claimants by Iranian Authorities, page 1, 10 March 2015.