CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014 material on the situation of human rights in Pakistan, when Christians approach the police to file complaints about religious persecution, no assistance is provided, and the situation of the people reporting such harassment may even worsen. 5.5 In addition, the authors claim that the Board’s rejection of the information about the fire rests on feeble grounds. Even though the same date of the fire was referred to throughout the proceedings, namely 27 May 2012, the State party found it contradictory that one interview referred to the “evening” while the Board’s decision mentions that it was “still light outside, and the time was about 4 p.m.” or “late in the day”. R.G. who made the last statement, is a relatively elderly lady who suffers from psychological trauma because of her experiences. Moreover, evening in Pakistan is normally considered to be between 5 and 9 p.m., so it can still be light outside when “evening” begins, and the difference between 4 and 5 p.m. is not significant. The authors’ counsel submits that R.G.’s explanations of where she was when she noticed the fire are not contradictory; all the explanations correspond with the fact that she was with her family in their house. I.G. and one of his sisters were asleep, and the other son and daughter were awake. R.G. was the first to notice the fire, when she was in the kitchen. After that, R.G. got the son and daughter who were awake to help extinguish the fire and, in the meantime, the other son and daughter had woken up and helped to put out the fire. It appeared to R.G. that the fire had been started by something that was thrown in from the window, and it was an obvious assumption that this attack was carried out by the same people who had harassed the family earlier the same Sunday, because the family had no other enemies. 5.6 In conclusion, the authors maintain that the State party, by upholding the decision to reject their asylum claim, placed them at a great risk of being exposed to deprivation of life or to torture or other degrading treatment, and that their deportation to Pakistan would therefore amount to a breach of articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. State party’s additional observations 6. On 7 July 2015, the State party submitted additional observations, in which it reiterated its main claims on the admissibility and merits of the communication of 5 September 2014, reporting that the authors’ submissions of 13 October 2014 and 13 November 2014 did not give rise to any further comments by the State party. Thus, the State party maintains, as stated in its observations of 5 September 2014,that the communication is not sufficiently substantiated and should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party further maintains that the return of the author to Pakistan would not constitute a violation of the provisions of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 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. It also notes that the authors have exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.3 The Committee notes the authors’ allegations under articles 6 and 7 that, if returned to Pakistan, their lives would be at risk, that they would also be at risk of serious harm, including rape of the minor girls, and that they would be forced to hide their religious beliefs in violation of article 18. The Committee notes, however, the State party’s argument 11