CCPR/C/132/D/3188/2018 Advance unedited version supportive of the central claim, if the Board considers that the testimony would not be of relevance to the outcome, the request may still be refused. The State Party notes that the that the proposed witness had already provided written testimony prior to the hearing, which had been included in the Board’s assessment of the author’s credibility. The State Party concludes that, in accordance with general principles of the administration of law and justice,24regarding the presentation of evidence, a witness who is intended to substantiate the general sincerity and credibility of the author cannot be attributed any significance. It is therefore submitted that the refusal to hear the oral evidence of this witness was justified and in line with established law and practice, including Committee jurisprudence and that the reasoning appears implicitly from the decision of the R.A.B.,25 It also stated that the statements provided in June 2019 by two individuals who were known to the author through his Christian activities and church attendance were not necessarily able to better assess the genuineness of his beliefs owing to the context in which they met him. 4.25 The State party characterizes the fears expressed by the author to be of a general nature and states that these are not based on specific facts that would put him at personal risk. It therefore supports the assertions reached by the R.A.B. after a thorough assessment. 4.26 It is additionally noted that the case-law supplied by the author in support of his claim before the Committee,26 is irrelevant in the current context, as each case can be distinguished on the facts and circumstances in each case and could be countered with numerous cases 27 in which the State Party was found not to be in violation. 28. . 4.27 The State party therefore reiterates that, in the case that the Committee finds the communication admissible, it is submitted that the claim lacks merit as the author does not present substantial grounds for his contention that his removal to Iran would be in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 30 December 2019, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. 5.2 In response to the State party’s contention that the communication is inadmissible, the author notes that where the Danish authorities accepted the genuineness of an asylum seeker’s conversion to Christianity, in previous cases, they have also accepted the contention that the person in question faces serious risk upon return to Iran and it is established practice they are awarded refugee status. Therefore, the underlying question is the State Party’s decision making authorities’ assessment of the genuineness of the author’s conversion, which necessarily implicates the merits of the communication. The author has explained the nature of his beliefs, conversion and other risk factors in detail and has set out the separate elements of his claim. He has explained why he believes that these were not fully assessed either individually, or cumulatively, leading to a failure to full assess the risk he faces and therefore a denial of justice. Therefore, the author submits that the communication is well founded in fact and thus admissible. 5.3 The author further asserts that the State Party provides no specific arguments as to the inadmissibility of the communication, merely stating that the communication is inadmissible and, in support only refer the reader to itsthe reasoning in the subsequent section on the merits. The author therefore reads this is as tacit acceptance that the controversy in the case relates tothe merits only. The author therefore submits that he has a prima facie case with regard to his claim the State party’s is in violation of his rights under articles 6 and 7 of 24 25 26 27 28 8 s. 341 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven) X v. Norway Communication No. 2474/2014, paras 7.4, 7.5 and 7.7 adopted on 5 November 2015. Including E.A. v. Denmark (CCPR communication No. 2320/2013), Jamal Gazemi v. Denmark (CCPR communication No. 2150/2012) and Mr. Ziaoudin Shahroki v. Denmark (CCPR communication No. 2286/2013). Citing for example, E.K. v. Denmark (CCPR communication No. 2346/2014), on 2 April 2019 in I.K. v. Denmark (CCPR communication No. 2373/2014), on 4 April 2019 in M.B.S. v. Denmark (CCPR communication No. 2439/2014), on 10 April 2019 in S.F. v. Denmark (CCPR communication No. 2494/2014). M.M. v. Denmark (CCPR communication No. 2345/2014).