CCPR/C/125/D/2345/2014 grounds for seeking asylum, and he had also given non-committal, evasive and vague replies even to simple and uncomplicated questions. The Board further observed that the author had also failed to draw attention to his interest in Christianity in his requests to reopen his asylum claim received by the Board on 13 August 2012 and 8 August 2013. 8.6 In this regard, the Committee considers that when an asylum seeker submits that he or she has converted to another religion after his or her initial asylum request has been dismissed in the country of asylum, it may be reasonable for the States parties to conduct an in-depth examination of the circumstances of the conversion.32 However, the test for the Committee remains whether, regardless of the sincerity of the conversion, there are substantial grounds for believing that such conversion may have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to create a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, even when it is found that the reported conversion is not genuine, the authorities should proceed to assess whether, in the circumstances of the case, the asylum seeker’s behaviour and activities in connection with, or to justify, his or her conversion, such as attending a church, being baptized or participating in proselytizing activities, could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put him or her at risk of irreparable harm. 33 8.7 In the present case, the Committee notes the State party’s reference to the report by Landinfo on the situation of Christians and converts in Afghanistan (see para. 6.7 above) in support of its argument that, even if it becomes known in the country of origin that the author has indicated conversion as his grounds for seeking asylum in another country, it does not mean that he will become vulnerable upon his return, since there is a widespread understanding among Afghans for compatriots who try anything to obtain residence in Europe. Furthermore, according to the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection (see para. 6.7 above), “self-serving” activities do not create a well-founded fear of persecution in one’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. 8.8 The Committee also notes that, although the author generally contests the assessment and findings of the Danish authorities as to the risk of harm he faces in Afghanistan, he has not presented any evidence to substantiate his allegations under articles 7 and 18 of the Covenant. The Committee also considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements available when evaluating the risk of irreparable harm faced by the author upon his return to Afghanistan and that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process. The Committee also considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities and with their decision not to reopen his case, he has not shown that the Board’s decision of 6 February 2014 was arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. 8.9 While not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the author have not adduced sufficient grounds for demonstrating that his forcible return to Afghanistan was contrary to articles 7 and 18 of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s forcible return to Afghanistan did not violate his rights under articles 7 and 18 of the Covenant. 32 33 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, para. 34. S.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014), para. 11.8. 15