CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016 Special Administrative Region, when he was taking part in a secret activity; that the Meixin Church, at which he worshipped, had been closed down by the Government in June 2015; and that the pro-democracy movement had suspended its political activities for the time being and was instead focusing on saving members who had been imprisoned. On that occasion, the author told the leader about his fear of being returned to China. 2.14 The author claims that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies, as the decisions of the Board cannot be appealed. The author has not submitted his complaint to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The author complains that the State party would violate its obligations under articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant by forcibly removing him and his minor son to China. 3.2 The author claims that his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant would be violated if Denmark proceeds with his and his son’s removal to China, owing to the fact that he had worked secretly for many years to introduce democracy in China. He fears being arrested, potentially sentenced to life imprisonment or the death penalty, and subjected to renewed torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to China. As regards article 18 of the Covenant, he claims that he would be deprived of the possibility to practise his Christian religion if returned to China. 3.3 The author submits that he is at risk of suffering irreparable harm if removed to China because of his previous political and religious engagements with the Meixin Church. He also claims that the State party has not duly investigated, in the context of his credibility assessment, the signs of torture he previously endured; his family background (his father’s dissidence and his sisters’ escape and refugee status in Denmark); his participation at demonstrations against China and his membership of a Mormon Church while in Denmark and his absence from China since 2012. 3.4 He particularly claims that the Board did not undertake any examination of available evidence before his first or second rejection, in so far as they did not consider the information on the website of the Meixin Church, which the author had co-edited; did not call his older sister as a witness; and did not grant the author the requested medical examination for signs of past torture. Such examination should have been carried out before a negative credibility assessment and decision. 3.5 Furthermore, the author submits that, in its decision of 24 September 2015 by which it refused to reopen his asylum case, the Board did not take into account the information about his sisters and their common background. 3.6 Finally, the author submits that his former spouse was unable to take care of their minor, autistic son, whom she had abandoned emotionally and had beaten and scolded. He claims that, if he were arrested in China, his son would be left behind and end up either living on the streets or dead, which the author feared even more than he feared being sent to prison.3 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 21 September 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication, elaborating on the author’s asylum proceedings, including in particular the Board’s decisions of 4 September 2013 and 24 September 2015. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Board, which it considers to be an independent, quasi-judicial body.4 3 4 4 The author does not specify to what extent the national asylum authorities have considered the possible impacts of the removal on the author’s son, who is on the autism spectrum. See for example communication No. 2379/2014, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3.