CCPR/C/132/D/3188/2018 Advance unedited version Covenant. Therefore, the Committee does not seek to interfere with the findings of State Party authorities, in this regard. 7.7 Regardless, however, of the State Party’s assessment of the credibility of the author or its consequent finding that the author’s account of events in Iran had not been rendered probable, State party authorities were obliged to assess whether, in all of the circumstances, the behaviour and activities of the author prior to, or indeed after, arrival, in the State Party, individually or cumulatively, could have serious adverse consequences in the event of his return to Iran such as to put him at serious personal risk of irreparable harm. 7.8 In this connection, while it was for the author to raise facts capable of leading to a conclusion that his rights would be violated by his return, the State Party also has a duty to consider all of the separate risk factors and, where information is not readily available despite the applicant’s best efforts, to seek out all reasonably ascertainable information in order to discharge its procedural obligation to comprehensively assess the risk. The Committee notes that the author provided sufficiently detailed explanations to substantiate the contention that he had converted to Christianity, left Iran illegally, evaded military service, been baptized in Denmark, publicly encouraged other Iranians to attend church services, has several tattoos of Christian iconography, attended and was photographed at an anti-regime demonstration and had repeatedly posted about his Christian beliefs on his Facebook page. Therefore, these factors necessitated an in depth examination, taken alone and together to determine whether any or all of them were capable of placing the author at risk of treatment contrary to the Covenant. 7.9 The State Party provides no evidence of its analysis of the risk the author faces if his tattoos were to be discovered, despite country information it relies on, which indicates that “The authorities could interrogate a convert on return, if it has come to the attention of authorities that he has converted….as regards public conversion, the system will react, but the numbers are limited…it was emphasized that nobody has been executed in Iran due to conversion.”36 The State Party asserts that on the basis of the above excerpt ,“the author will not be at risk”. 7.10 As to the information posted on the internet, there is again no apparent assessment, despite the State Party’s quote from a report stating that “a photo of [an applicant’s ] conversion posted on the internet would be evaluated with along with his profile and activities….if the Facebook page was closed to the public or the photos were posted for a short time and then taken down and no further activities were carried out relating to Christianity, the person would not be of interest.” This seems to leave open the possibility that should posts be open to the public, or left online for a prolonged period or posted in conjunction with other public activities, then a person could be of interest. It is this possibility that the State Party was obliged to explore. Despite the author showing the interviewer his tattoos and Facebook posts during his substantive interview, there is nothing in the interview record, at either the first or second instance or indeed elsewhere in the State Party’s submission, to indicate that any further questions were asked except to confirm whether it appeared from his Facebook posts that he was a Christian, which he answered in the affirmative. 7.11 The RAB noted the author’s claim that he participated in a demonstration in Denmark against the Iranian regime and that photos had been taken of the applicant at the event. However, at no point did the decision-maker attempt to establish the veracity of the statement, ask to see the photos, ask where they were posted or attempt to elicit any further information from the author as to the basis for his belief that he had been photographed. 7.12 The RAB concluded that “based on an overall assessment, the applicant has failed to render it probable that he would be at specific individual risk of persecution or abuse falling within section 7 of the Alien’s Act in case of his return to Iran. The information that he left the country unlawfully and that he has not performed mandatory military service cannot lead to a different assessment.” The Committee notes however, that there is no evidence that any such assessment was, in fact, carried out. The facts that the author left illegally and failed to 36 12 Danish Immigration Service, Iran: House Churches and Converts, February 2018, 4/2018, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5ab8f2de4.html.