CCPR/C/125/D/2345/2014 conversion is genuine and if it is accepted as a fact that the asylum seeker will practise his new faith upon return to his country of origin and therefore will be at such a risk of persecution in that country as to justify asylum. 6.7 Furthermore, the attention of the Committee is drawn to a report by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo, on the situation of Christians and converts in Afghanistan published on 4 September 2013 (in Norwegian). Towards the end of the report, several sources state that, even if it becomes known in the country of origin that a person has indicated conversion as his grounds for seeking asylum in another country, this does not mean that the person will become vulnerable upon return, since Afghans show great understanding for compatriots who try anything to obtain residence in Europe. The State party adds that paragraph 36 of the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection: Religion-Based Refugee Claims under Article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees states, inter alia, that so-called “selfserving” activities do not create a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in the claimant’s country of origin, if the opportunistic nature of such activities will be apparent to all, including the authorities there, and serious adverse consequences would not result if the person were returned.23 6.8 With reference to its observations of 11 August 2014, the State party reiterates its position that, in the event of the author’s return to Afghanistan, the author would not risk abuse contrary to article 7 of the Covenant because he has no family and because of his age and ethnicity. The State party recalls that the author is an ethnic Hazara from Mazar-eSharif in the Balkh Province, in which Hazaras make up 10 per cent of the population. Moreover, in Bamian, the largest city in the southern part of Balkh Province, Hazara is the dominant ethnicity. Accordingly, the State party finds that the general situation in Afghanistan, including in Kabul, is not in itself of such nature that, for that reason alone, the author meets the conditions for being granted asylum. 24 6.9 The State party observes that the author was forcibly returned to Afghanistan on 10 February 2014 and that the Afghan authorities agreed to take him back (see para. 5.5 above). 6.10 In conclusion, the State party submits that, when rendering its decisions, the Refugee Appeals Board made a thorough assessment of the author’s specific circumstances and the background information available. In the State party’s opinion, the author’s communication merely reflects that the author disagrees with the Board’s assessment of his specific circumstances and background information. In his communication, the author also failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. The author is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances put forward in support of his claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. However, the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings made by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances in the author’s case. There is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessments made by the Board, according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being killed or subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he was returned to Afghanistan. Against this background, the return of the author to Afghanistan would not constitute a violation of articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. 23 24 12 See also X. v. Norway (CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014), para. 7.6. See the judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 12 January 2016 in A.G.R. v. the Netherlands (application No. 13442/08), para. 59; A.W.Q. and D.H. v. the Netherlands (application No. 25077/06), para. 71; M.R.A. and Others v. the Netherlands (application No. 46856/07), para. 112; S.D.M. and Others v. the Netherlands (application No. 8161/07), para. 79; and S.S. v. the Netherlands (application No. 39575/06), para. 66.