Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/3188/2018 will face the death penalty and/or ill/degrading treatment. He also fears that S’ husband will carry out his repeated threats to the life of the author and his family. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the above claims are of a general nature, are not sufficiently substantiated and that the author’s claims contain no evidence of procedural irregularity. It further states, that, owing to inconsistencies in the author’s statements, including discrepancies in relation to the dates on which key events occurred, his account of his relationship with S and his dealings with her husband the search at his mother’s home and her injuries after being hit by a car, he was not found to be credible and therefore his central claims of conversion and his extra-marital relationship were not assessed to be genuine. It also notes that the decision-making authorities proceeded in its assessment, on the basis of certain misconceptions that are not reflected in the submissions before the Committee. The first is that the author’s claim of conversion was secondary to the relationship with S when it appears clearly from the file that the conversion and relationship were both raise, the conversion first in fact, from the beginning of the asylum process. It also interpreted a statement the author made regarding his feelings about outwardly demonstrating his Christianity in Denmark or before he left Iran, as meaning that in any case he would “keep a low profile” if retuned to Iran, which he clearly disputes but did not have the opportunity to expand upon. As a result of these assumptions, it was not accepted by the State Party that the author would face any serious risk upon his return. It was concluded that the author would not face a serious penalty for having left Iran illegally, having Christian tattoos, attending a protest or avoiding military service. His claim to conscientious objection was also not accepted as genuine based on the earlier credibility finding. 7.5 The Committee refers to UNHCR guidance,33 that, while the burden of proof rests on the author, in principle, “the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the examiner. Indeed, in some cases, it may be for the examiner to use all the means at his disposal to produce the necessary evidence in support of the application. The cumulative effect of the applicant’s experience must be taken into account and, although no single incident may be sufficient, all the incidents related by the applicant taken together, could make his fear ‘well-founded’.”34 Further, as quoted by the State Party in its submission, “where particular credibility concerns arise, a rigorous and in depth examination of the circumstances and genuineness of the conversion will be necessary.” The guidance also states that when an asylum seeker submits that he or she has become an atheist, or converted to another faith, even when this occurred after his or her initial asylum request has been dismissed, it may be reasonable for an in-depth examination of the circumstances of the conversion to be carried out by the authorities. 35 7.6 With regard to rejecting the application to hear oral testimony, the Committee notes the inconsistencies in the author’s version of events, which led the State party to find that the author’s account of events prior to leaving Iran was not credible, and therefore found the assertion that he had converted to Christianity whilst in Iran or that he had an affair with a married woman also not to be credible. . In these circumstances, in rebutting the negative credibility finding, the burden was on the author to explain how proffered oral evidence could cure these defects. The Committee notes that the author did not explain how such oral evidence could have cured the perceived lack of credibility and refers to the State party’s argument that the same witness had already provided a written statement. The Committee notes the State Party’s assertion, that hearing the witness’ oral testimony could have made no difference to the outcome of the claim, as it pertains only to the credibility of the author. While this is not clearly supported by the facts, as the testimony did in fact relate to the central issue in the claim, the Committee, nevertheless, finds that the State Party’s reasoning for the refusal to hear the testimony was sufficient to discharge its procedural obligations under the 33 34 35 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, April 2019, HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV. 4, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5cb474b27.html. Para 196, Ibid. Para 34 of the Guidelines on International protection, Ibid. 11