CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016 evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists.8 Both decisions of the Board were based on procedures during which the author had the opportunity to present his views in writing and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel. 4.16 In his communication to the Committee, the author merely disagrees with the Board’s assessment of the evidence and its factual conclusions, without demonstrating that the assessment was arbitrary or otherwise amounted to a denial of justice, or that any risk factor would have been omitted. Therefore, the State party submits that the author is in fact trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of his case reassessed. 4.17 In conclusion, the State party reiterates that it would not constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant to return the author and his minor son to China, and that it cannot be held responsible for violations of article 18 prospectively to be committed by another State party outside the territory and jurisdiction of Denmark. Furthermore, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish that he would be deprived of his rights under article 18 of the Covenant if returned to China, taking into account that the Chinese authorities generally tolerate followers of unregistered churches to practise their faith, and requests the Committee to lift the interim measures that it granted. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 17 February 2017, the author’s counsel submitted that there has not been any valid concern with regard to the credibility of the author’s statements. The author has for many years yearned for democracy, like his father and sisters. In 1998, he accepted to work voluntarily for a church-connected organization, in which he, in his position as accountant for a State-owned building material company, channelled large amounts of money by overpricing. The money was sent from overseas to the pro-democracy movement. Those irregularities were discovered by the authorities and the author was suspected of taking bribes or of overpricing for his personal gain. 5.2 He was imprisoned and tortured in 2001 but released as no proof was found. Those allegations were accepted as fact by the State party. Weakened by torture, the author was assigned less demanding tasks in the State company. In parallel, he recruited and trained new members in the church-connected organization in the disguise of a study group in the Meixin Church, where he was also an active Christian. The police harassed the members of the Church as those of all private churches, including by taking photographs of people participating in religious services. 5.3 After the arrest in July 2012 of his religious leader, Mr. Zhang, the author was constantly on alert and considered several options to escape quickly, but he rather decided to leave China safely together with his autistic son. 9 The author’s risk after Mr. Zhang’s arrest was two-fold. First, it was becoming probable that the 1998–2001 case that had been initiated against him would be reopened in relation to the channelling of large amounts of foreign capital into China for the activities of the pro-democracy organization, which could bring to light the scheme, including the author’s role therein, insofar as Mr. Zhang might disclose all that information under torture. Second, the author’s current activities for the 8 9 8 See, e.g., communication No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), paras. 7.3 and 7.4. The State party also refers to further jurisprudence of the Committee in that regard, including communications No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), paras. 7.4 and 7.5; No. 2426/2014, N v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014), para. 6.6; No. 2186/2012, X and X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 7.5; and No. 2329/2014, Z v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014), para. 7.4. The author refers to his 15 August 2013 letter to the Board in which he elaborates on the reasons why he had accepted the risk of waiting for a visa instead of leaving China illegally. Several options for escape were discussed with his immediate leader, Mr. Wang, but were deemed too risky because of the author’s autistic son. Those included travelling via Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Viet Nam and Thailand, but it was decided the safest way would be to obtain a visa to Denmark, because his two sisters lived there.