CCPR/C/133/D/2510/2014 Advance unedited version Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his comments of 5 December 2019, the author25 submits that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 12 November 2018 goes against the Committee’s views in the case of K.H. v. Denmark. 26 He recalls that he was taken to the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Denmark and during the meeting, he openly expressed his Christian conviction. Before that meeting, he also openly expressed his Christian conviction in the Danish media. It follows that his conversion was indeed known to the authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran when the Refugee Appeals Board issued its decision on 12 November 2018. 5.2 The author also submits that following the Committee’s views in the case of K.H. v. Denmark, Mr. K.H. was granted a new hearing by the Refugee Appeals Board and obtained asylum, thus being protected against refoulement and the risks that his conversion would have triggered. However, in his case, the Board, sitting in another composition, found that there was no need for protection for the author against refoulement. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes that the author has alleged a violation of articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant but has not provided any information on or evidence or convincing explanation of how his rights under these articles would be violated by the State party through his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee therefore concludes that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee then notes the State party’s challenge to admissibility on the grounds that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant and on the basis of an alleged risk to his integrity is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has adequately explained the reasons why he fears that his forcible return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would result in a risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant owing to his conversion to Christianity. The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 7 and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 25 26 10 The counsel affirms that the author went into hiding after the latest rejection of his asylum, but was able to contact him. CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014.