CCPR/C/117/D/2415/2014 4.3 The State party submits that the author entered Denmark in possession of his genuine Pakistani passport provided with a Schengen visa issued by the Danish embassy in Islamabad, valid from 16 August 2009 to 11 November 2009. On 19 October 2009, the Danish Immigration Service refused the author’s application for an extension of his visa. On 19 January 2012, the author applied for asylum. In the period between 12 November 2009 and 19 January 2012, the author stayed in Denmark without a right of residence. 4.4 On 11 May 2012, the Danish Immigration Services refused the author asylum and, on 10 October 2012, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board confirmed that refusal. On 22 October 2012, the author requested in writing that the Refugee Appeals Board reopen the asylum proceedings, which request was denied on 21 March 2014. On 26 March 2014, by personal inquiry at the secretariat of the Refugee Appeals Board, the author again requested to reopen the asylum proceedings, which was again refused on 4 June 2014. 4.5 The State party submits that the decision of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board of 10 October 2012 was made taking in consideration the information provided by the author regarding his political activities and related imprisonment in the 1980s and his participation in a peace mission to India in 2005, after which he was contacted several times by the Pakistani intelligence service to work for them, and that, given his failure to accept, they started interfering with his business. The State party submits that it cannot accept the author’s statement of his grounds for seeking asylum as a fact and that the author did not provide a plausible explanation for taking two and a half years before applying for asylum. 4.6 The State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board decision took into account that the author failed to provide a coherent and convincing statement of the inquiries made of him by the intelligence service, and that the number of those inquiries differed according to the author’s statements. The Refugee Appeals Board cannot consider as a fact that the intelligence service had made only a few inquiries over several years and accepted the author’s evasive responses if it had really wanted him to collaborate and observes that the author was not subject to reprisals. The Refugee Appeals Board also took into account that the author was allowed to leave Pakistan lawfully, using his own national passport provided with a Schengen tourist visa. The Refugee Appeals Board therefore found that the author would not be at a real risk of persecution falling within section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act or treatment or punishment falling within section 7 (2) of the Act in case of return to Pakistan. 4.7 The State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board considered the letter submitted by the author on 22 October 2013 as a request to reopen the case. The letter appeared to be sent by a person named A.G. and stated that the author would be at risk of persecution and harassment in case of his return to Pakistan because Benazir Bhutto had been overthrown as president and her successor, Asif Ali Zardari, considered the author an enemy. In his request to reopen the case, the author added that the general conditions in Pakistan had been difficult since 11 September 2011 due to the presence of the Taliban and Al-Qaida. 4.8 The State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board decision of 21 March 2014 not to reopen the case is based on the fact that the letter had not provided new information regarding the author’s specific difficulties in Pakistan, beyond the information already available and considered by the Board when it made its decision on 10 October 2012, and that the author failed to substantiate that he would be at a real risk of persecution or abuse falling within section 7 of the Aliens Act if returned to Pakistan. The Refugee Appeals Board further considered that the generally difficult conditions in Pakistan could not in itself justify a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act. 4.9 The State party submits that, on 26 March 2014, the author once again requested a reopening of his asylum proceeding and presented three documents. The first document, dated 27 September 2012, appears to be a notice issued by Deputy Director M.A., relating 4