CCPR/C/125/D/2345/2014 4.13 Regarding the author’s submission that the Board has failed to decide on the issue of an internal flight alternative (see para. 3.3 above), the State party observes that this issue is irrelevant, considering that the Board has found in its two decisions on the case – and continues to find – that the author would not be at a specific and individual risk of being subjected to persecution or abuse justifying asylum under section 7 (1) or (2) of the Aliens Act upon his return to Afghanistan. 4.14 With regard to the risk faced by the author upon his return to Afghanistan due to his conversion to Christianity (see para. 3.1 above), the State party observes that even though the author cannot be required to hide or keep secret his religious beliefs in order to avoid problems in his country of origin as a consequence of his religious beliefs, it still remains crucial to the matter of granting or not granting asylum to the author whether he has a wellfounded fear of persecution by authorities or private individuals in Afghanistan as a consequence of his religious beliefs. 4.15 The State party submits in that connection that the Board took into account in its refusal of 6 February 2014 to reopen the author’s case that he had not at any time during the initial asylum proceedings disclosed his interest in Christianity (see para. 2.15 above). However, it appears from the request for reopening that the author had started going to church in Denmark half a year after his arrival in Denmark and more than half a year before the hearing before the Board on 16 January 2012, at which the author gave evidence before the Board, aided by counsel and an interpreter. Additionally, it appears from the memorandum prepared by the minister of the Kronborgvejens Church Centre that the author had attended church services regularly since 2013. 4.16 The State party argues that it follows from section 40 of the Aliens Act that asylum seekers must substantiate their grounds for seeking asylum. This entails an obligation for the asylum seeker to provide information on all matters relevant under asylum law, such as an interest in Christianity leading to church attendance. It must be assumed to be common knowledge among Danish immigration lawyers and asylum seekers in particular that conversion from Islam to Christianity is a valid and relevant justification for seeking asylum. Moreover, the author was asked about his religious affiliation several times in connection with the examination of his application for asylum in Denmark and stated each time that he was a Muslim. He was also told several times that it was important that he disclose all matters that might be relevant for the determination of his application for asylum. 4.17 The State party observes in that connection that the author saw reason to disclose his second grounds for asylum, that he had been a dancing boy in Kabul, at the oral Board hearing on 16 January 2012, which argues against his ignorance about the importance of providing all relevant information under asylum law. Hence, the author had the opportunity to tell about his interest in Christianity and his dissociation with Islam at the Board hearing, but he chose not to do so. Only in mid-December 2013 – when the forced return of the author was about to be effected – did the author disclose that he had converted to Christianity. In that connection, the State party observes that no explanation has been given as to why the author chose not to disclose that he was a Christian until almost two years after the Board’s decision in the original asylum proceedings. 4.18 The State party does not consider credible the author’s explanations in his initial submission of 7 February 2014 to the Committee that he had not mentioned anything about his Christian faith during the original examination of his asylum application because he was not a Christian at that time, not least in view of the fact that the author has stated himself, according to the case information, that he had become interested in Christianity already in Turkey and that he had started going to church half a year before the Board hearing on 16 January 2012. In addition, in his letters requesting that his asylum case be reopened, received by the Board on 13 August 2012, 27 August 2012 and 8 August 2013, the author did not disclose his Christian affiliation, although by the time of his last letter, and according to his later statements, the author was already attending church regularly. 4.19 In the light of the foregoing, the State party finds no reason to revise the Board’s assessment that the author’s conversion to Christianity was not genuine. The State party 8