CCPR/C/132/D/3188/2018 Advance unedited version 4.13 With regard to the author’s sur place activities, including his baptism, his religious tattoos and comments on Facebook, the State party echoes the RAB’s assessment that these are not capable of putting the author in danger of treatment contrary to the Covenant, based on its assessment that his conversion was not genuine. In support, the State Party quotes guidance from UNHCR on asylum procedures advising that:“Where individuals convert after their departure from the country of origin, this may have the effect of creating a sur place claim. In such situations, particular credibility concerns tend to arise and a rigorous, and in depth examination of the circumstances and genuineness of the conversion will be necessary.”16 4.14 In this context, the State Party asserts that the R.A.B. made a careful assessment of the author’s statements as well as all other circumstances in the case in accordance with procedures found to be adequate by the European Court of Human Rights in M.E. v. Denmark17. 4.15 The State Party reaffirms that in the case of the author his general credibility and the circumstances of his alleged conversion were included in the Board’s assessment of the evidence. 4.16 In this connection, the State Party also draws the Committee’s attention to the public debate in Denmark, in general and among asylum seekers, which has focussed on the significance of conversion, typically from Islam to Christianity and its positive effects on the outcome of asylum claims. 4.17 As to the author’s claims that he will have to hide his religion in Iran, the State Party reiterates the RAB’s finding that, as he has failed to substantiate that his conversion to Christianity was sincere, it cannot be assumed that he would face persecution in Iran and furthermore, that he does not carry an existing profile with Iranian authorities. The RAB found that the author’s Christian tattoos alone are not enough to trigger the State Party’s protection obligations, as the author failed to rendered probable that these tattoos would place him in opposition to Iranian authorities or that any sanctions resulting from discovery of his tattoos would be disproportionate. In any case, the State Party notes that, regardless of the sincerity of his conversion, the R.A.B. implicitly assessed whether, in the circumstances, the author’s behaviour and activities could have adverse consequences, which would put him at risk and it found that they would not. 4.18 The State Party refers to country information18 which indicates that while the Iranian authorities are aware that Iranian nationals use conversion as grounds for asylum, such conversion, in itself, does not result in sanctions amountingto persecution. The State Party notes that the same report it is stated that no one in Iran has been executed for conversion and that there is some flexibility from the authorities on such matters. 4.19 Concerning the demonstration, the State Party posits that it does not see this as being capable of changing the assessment, as the author does not in any way appear to have been 6 16 UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status at paras. 96 and 34 of the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection, Para 34: https://cms.emergency.unhcr.org/documents/11982/49074/UNHCR%2C+Handbook+ and+Guidelines+on+Procedures+and+Criteria+for+Determining+Refugee+Status+under+the+1951+ Convention+and+the+1967+Protocol+Relating+to+the+Status+of+Refugees/30fe78f2-5414-47ec9439-0f2663889e58. 18 Danish Immigration Service, Iran: House Churches and Converts, February 2018, 4/2018, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5ab8f2de4.html,“The Iranian authorities are aware that some returnees converted to Christianity to obtain asylum. It has agents abroad to monitor Iranian citizens. However it is unknown to what capacity the authorities monitor everyone. They do not monitor everyone all the time, what the authorities want is to create fear among people that they are being monitored. The authorities could interrogate a convert on return, if they had become aware of the conversion prior to departure from Iran or if significant information was available online for a significant period. Such interrogation would only come about if additional information were in the hands of authorities such as the individual being known to have attended a house church in Iran. A comment or posted on Facebook and then deleted without more for instance would not be of interest”.