CCPR/C/133/D/2510/2014 Advance unedited version 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 conversion may have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin such as to create a real risk of irreparable harm, as contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, even when it is found that the reported conversion is not sincere, the authorities should proceed to assess whether, in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour and activities of the asylum seeker 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 such as to put him or her at risk of irreparable harm. 33 7.6 In the present case, the Committee observes that it is not contested that the author was baptized, but the majority of the members of the Board focused their reasoning on the sincerity of the conversion, concluding that the author had failed to establish that his conversion was genuine on the basis of his general lack of credibility, inconsistencies in his statements, evasive responses and, in particular, the moment of his conversion, that is, only after refusal of both his asylum application and of his request for re-examination, as well as following several unsuccessful attempts by the Danish authorities to remove him from the country. 7.7 The Committee further notes that, while the author contests the assessment and findings of the Danish authorities as to the risk of the harm he would have faced in the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his conversion, he has failed to provide any pertinent information to the Committee to justify his claim that his alleged conversion is indeed known to the Iranian authorities, that he will practise Christianity in the Islamic Republic of Iran or that he has been targeted by the Iranian authorities on the basis of his conversion. 7.8 With respect to the other allegations brought by the author, the Committee observes that the Danish authorities have also analysed the author’s previous activities for the Basij and considered that he did not demonstrate a risk of persecution based on his former membership with the Basij or that he was a person of interest to the Iranian authorities before his departure. The Danish authorities have equally analysed the tattoos that the author had acquired in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as those which he made while in Denmark, but noted that the author did not have any problems while in the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his tattoos, which in any case were not directly visible. The Danish authorities also examined his appearances in different Danish media as well as the fact that he does not have a valid Iranian passport and that he has also informed the Iranian Embassy in Denmark about his conversion, but considered nevertheless that the author had failed to demonstrate that he had become a person of interest for the Iranian authorities following those actions and events. 7.9 The Committee considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements available when evaluating the risks invoked by the author and that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process. The Committee further considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party authorities, he has not shown that their decisions were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous or that they amounted to a denial of justice. Consequently, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the author have not adduced sufficient grounds for demonstrating that he would run a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In view thereof, the Committee is not able to conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant would be violated if he were removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 32 33 12 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “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. Available at www.unhcr.org/afr/40d8427a4.pdf. S.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014), para. 11.8; and M.B.S. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/125/D/2439/2014), para. 8.5.