CCPR/C/133/D/2510/2014 Advance unedited version 4.7 The State party submits that only in his request for re-examination of 3 December 2014 did the author notify the Refugee Appeals Board that he had what could be perceived to be an interest in Christianity because he had an angel and other symbols tattooed on his body. The request for reopening said that the tattoos were contrary to Islamic teachings. The author did not mention his potentially religiously motivated actions, like attendance at church services, involvement in the Christian community, classes or the like in his request for reopening. 4.8 Accordingly, the State party notes that the author only started showing particular interest in the Christian faith after his application for asylum had been refused on 27 August 2014 and his request for reopening had been refused on 12 December 2014. The author was baptized on 16 April 2015, which is four months after his request for reopening had been refused by the Refugee Appeals Board. Moreover, the photos of the author’s tattoos and his certificate of baptism dated 16 April 2015 were only submitted to the Refugee Appeals Board respectively on 3 December 2014 and 20 April 2015, when the author was already deprived of his liberty for the purpose of being removed from Denmark. 4.9 Finally, it was only in the pastor’s declaration of 7 June 2015 that mention was made of the fact that the author had attended church services on a regular basis during the period of ten months that he had been detained at the Ellebæk Institution, that is, for a period beginning more than eight months before the request for reopening was lodged on 20 April 2015. Similarly, it appears from the letter from the Bethania Church of 31 October 2014 which the Refugee Appeals Board also received shortly before its hearing on 1 July 2015 that the author had attended services in that church on a regular basis until 12 October 2014. The author did not give this information at any time during the asylum proceedings, whether at the Board hearing on 27 August 2014 or in his two requests for reopening. 4.10 Therefore, the State party considers that the advanced stage when the information on the author’s interest in Christianity was produced in itself weakens the credibility of his most recent and new grounds for asylum. It further notes that the author’s alleged new faith has not materialised in significant outer acts other than his baptism. 4.11 As far as the author’s tattoos are concerned, the State party considers that they are not an expression of the author’s Christian belief since, according to the information provided, the tattoos were made in the Islamic Republic of Iran while the author still professed Islam. At the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 1 July 2015, the author stated that his tattoos had been made while he lived in Iran and that they were not originally intended as Christian symbols. The author has further stated that he did not mention his tattoos to the Danish Immigration Service because he thought that they were of no importance to his application for asylum. The State party further notes that the author declared to the Danish Immigration Service on 14 February 2014 that he had not previously had any conflicts with religious or other groups and that there were no other matters of significance, including political or religious matters. 4.12 The State party submits that when an asylum-seeker relies on a conversion after his or her departure from his or her country of origin as grounds for claiming asylum – in some cases the conversion may even have taken place at a fairly advanced stage of the asylum proceedings – such conversion may in itself be considered relevant for the purposes of the credibility assessment to be made by the Refugee Appeals Board. According to paragraph 34 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, “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 indepth examination of the circumstances and genuineness of the conversion will be necessary.” Paragraph 36 of the Guidelines states, inter alia, that “[s]o-called ‘self-serving’ 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.” 8