CCPR/C/132/D/3188/2018 Advance unedited version 3.2 He claims that the State party failed its procedural obligations to carry out a thorough assessment of the risk he faces on return, having regard to either the individual elements explained above, or their cumulative effect on his risk profile. He claims the judicial process is therefore marred by procedural irregularities, which amount to a denial of justice. State Party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 The State Party provided its observations on the admissibility and merits of the author’s communication on 26 November 2018 along with a request to lift interim measures, which was not acceded to, and provided additional submissions on 11 March 2021. 4.2 The State Party asserts that the author’s communication is inadmissible. It refers to the reasoning of the R.A.B. delivered on 27 March 2018, in which it held that it did not accept the author’s account, owing to ‘inconsistent and elaborative’ statements made during the course of the asylum process. It states that the author, during his initial screening interview, gave September 2015 as the approximate period during which the events causing him to flee Iran took place. However, at his substantive interview, he stated that these events took place in March/April 2015. The State Party also refers to the RAB’s finding of inconsistent statements as to the existence of an arrest warrant the first time authorities attended his residence,8 and the fact that it had only been mentioned later in the asylum process that the author’s mother had needed to use a wheelchair after being hit by a car. The State party also refers to the finding that the author had told the immigration service that S. had been married but divorced six months earlier but later before the RAB had stated that she was married for six months and that he assumed she was divorced. It also refers to inconsistent comments regarding the timeline of his interactions with S’ husband. At his substantive interview with the Immigration Service, he claimed that he had changed his sim card after he found out that S. was married but that the spouse had only called him after that. However, before the Board he stated that he had received a call from S’ spouse first and then changed his sim card.. Additionally the State Party points to the RAB’s observation that,in his initial interview with the Immigration Service the author stated that prior to his departure from Iran, S’ spouse, accompanied by three men had come to his mother’s home. At his second interview with the Immigration Service, he stated that his mother’s house was first searched after he left Iran.9 4.3 Owing to these inconsistencies, the RAB assessed that the author was not a credible witness and therefore, had failed to render it probable that his statement affirming his Christianity prior to leaving Iran was reliable.. Although it was accepted that the author had been baptized whilst in Denmark, it was not accepted that the conversion took place in Iran and therefore the conversion itself was not found to be genuine. 4.4 Further, the State Party refers tothe RAB’s reasoning thatthe author had indicated that he planned to keep a low profile in terms of his faith if returned to Iran and, that had therefore relied primarily on his extra-marital relationship as grounds for his asylum claim, it did not accept that his baptism or religious belief was sufficient to trigger the State Party’s protection obligations.10 4.5 The State Party refers to the RAB assessment that, as the facts leading to the author’s departure from Iran were disregarded owing to the negative credibility finding, the author had not rendered it probable that there was a specific and individualized risk of harm within the definition of article 7 of the Alien’s Act in the event of his return to Iran. It also held that neither the fact that he had left illegally or that he had evaded military service, taken individually or cumulatively, were sufficient to lead to a different conclusion. Therefore, the State Party echoes the reasoning given by the RAB for upholding the first instance decision stating that the author has presented no new facts leading it to question the decision of the RAB. 4