Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2510/2014 territory where the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, whether in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 19 The State party’s obligations under article 7 of the Covenant are reflected in section 7 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act, according to which a residence permit will be issued to an alien if he or she risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to his or her country of origin. 4.5 The State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board made an assessment in the author’s case as to whether his statements appeared credible and convincing, including whether they were considered probable, coherent and consistent. He gave inconsistent statements about the reason why he left his country,20 about his activities for the Basij 21 and his awareness of torture,22 on the awareness of the author’s membership with the Basij among people in his local community23 and about his contact with the family after his departure.24 4.6 As to his conversion to Christianity, the State party notes that the author did not submit his claim of conversion to the Danish immigration authorities until he lodged his second request for reopening his case on 20 April 2015. The author did not state at any time during the asylum proceedings that he had a religiously motivated interest in Christianity, nor did he mention any attendance at church services, whether in Denmark or elsewhere, or dissociated himself from Islam or conveyed a general interest in religion. Accordingly, the author did not disclose any such interest to the police or to the Danish Immigration Service. By contrast, he declared in his asylum application of 17 January 2014, at the asylum screening interview of 14 February 2014 and at the substantive interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 4 March 2014 that he was of the Muslim faith, without expressing any kind of doubt or reservation or otherwise referring to his affiliation with Islam as a problem either. In the brief of 19 August 2014 submitted by the author’s counsel at that time prior to the oral hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 27 August 2014, the author’s affiliation with Islam was not referred to as a problem either. By contrast, the counsel only made comments concerning the author’s initial grounds for asylum. It further appears from the brief of 19 August 2014 that the author’s support for the Christian church was based solely on acts committed by the Iranian regime in the name of Islam and not his own interest in Christianity. 19 20 21 22 23 24 X. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2. To go to Syria to fight for the Syrian regime or to carry weapons. Low-ranking member of Basij, but bodyguard for high-ranking individuals or sent to break up demonstrations. At the interview of 4 March 2014, he declared that he took part in beating and hitting protesters, and he had also arrested protesters and beaten random passers-by in the head and on the back with his baton. At the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 27 August 2014, the author stated that he had been in possession of a baton, a spray and handcuffs, but he had not used those items. At the interview of 4 March 2014, he declared that his membership with the Basij was common knowledge in his neighbourhood. Later at the substantive interview, the author stated, however, that his family did not know that he was a member of the Basij and that not everyone in the neighbourhood knew that he was a member. At the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 27 August 2014, he declared that his family was not aware of his affiliation with the Basij, but that a few of his friends knew. At the interview of 14 February 2014, he declared that he believed that his family had not yet been contacted by the authorities, but later during the same interview, he stated that he had been in contact with his family twice. Then according to the report of the substantive interview of 4 March 2014, the author declared that he had no contact with family or friends after his departure, but later during the same interview, he said that he had in fact been in contact with his family and that his father had been questioned by the authorities on his son’s whereabouts. Finally, at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 27 August 2014, he stated that he had contacted his family after his arrival in Denmark. 7