CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014 8.5 The Committee notes the State party’s observation that its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in paragraph 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, under which a residence permit will be issued to an alien upon application if the alien is at risk of the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the event of his return to his country of origin. The Committee further notes the State party’s observation that the assessment of whether an alien risks persecution or abuse justifying asylum in the event of his return to his country of origin must normally be made in the light of the information available at the time of the decision, i.e. that the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the State party at the time of the expulsion. According to the State party, the decisive factor must then be whether, at the time of the decisions of 21 May 2013 and 17 March 2014 made by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, information was available that supported the author’s allegation that he would be at risk of being subjected to persecution or abuse justifying asylum in the event of his return to Afghanistan. 8.6 In the context of the refusal of 17 March 2014 by the Board, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author has substantially enlarged on his statements to the Board and the Danish Refugee Council about the difficulties that he experienced during his stay in Kabul, as compared with the statements he made during the initial asylum proceedings. The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that the author was able to stay in Kabul from October 2009 to May 2012 without being located or contacted by the Taliban and that he was able to visit his family in Jalalabad; that the author does not seem to have provided any information at the meeting during which Christianity was discussed that could give the Afghan authorities a reason to believe that he had converted to Christianity; and that the Board saw no reason to adjourn the case pending the verification of the authenticity of the documents produced by the author, as it believed that it was possible to obtain all kinds of forged documents in Afghanistan. 16 8.7 At the same time, the Committee takes note of the author’s assertions that, due to his former work in fighting drug-related crime, in close cooperation with several Englishspeaking agencies, he is at “great risk of being exposed to serious harm and abuse, even death” by the Taliban in Afghanistan, in particular due to his assistance in securing the arrest of two Taliban-affiliated drug lords. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that, due to his past work, the author belongs to several risk groups under the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan of 6 August 2013, and that this fact was conceded by the State party. The Committee further notes the author’s assertions that, in the context of his past work, he was the victim of an abduction attempt and received written threats, and his brother was kidnapped and killed. It notes that those serious allegations were not specifically refuted by the State party. The Committee also notes the author’s assertions about his fears of the Afghan authorities, who reportedly believe that he is a supporter of Christianity because of a video recording in which he compares Christianity with Islam, although the State party pointed to the lack of evidence about the exact circumstances and time of production of the video in question. The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that neither the Danish Immigration Service nor the Board initiated any investigation as to the veracity and validity of the evidence produced in support of his detailed allegations. 16 12 communication Nos. 1819/2008, A.A. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.8; and 2049/2011, Z. v. Australia, Views adopted on 18 July 2014, para. 9.3. See, for example, Danish Immigration Service, “Afghanistan: country of origin information for use in the asylum determination process” (Copenhagen, May 2012).