CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016 same organization in disguise of his church could be revealed. Fortunately, the author’s part in the pro-democracy movement had not been revealed before his legal departure in December 2012. Sometime between December 2012 and March 2013, he became the focus of suspicion, and the authorities therefore went to his former wife’s home and made searches in March 2013. 5.4 After his arrival in Denmark, the author expressed his pro-democracy position on relevant occasions, such as the Chinese New Year in 2014. In December 2015, he received a telephone call from a leader of his local organization, who warned him against being too visible. He had no reason to reveal his pro-democratic activities in Denmark earlier than during the hearing before the Board, since his departure from Denmark had been postponed in the context of the processing of his son’s case on humanitarian grounds. 5.5 The Board solely based its negative decision on the five months between the arrest in July 2012 of Mr. Zhang and the author’s departure from China in December 2012, and the eight months between Mr. Zhang’s arrest and the authorities’ visit to search for the author in March 2013. The author agrees that he was not listed as a wanted person in December 2012, since he had had no problem at his departure. Perhaps it took time before Mr. Zhang would disclose him; perhaps Mr. Zhang withstood the pressure or died during torture before he could give information on him. However, the author knows that, sometime between December 2012 and March 2013, he was being sought by the Chinese police, who went to visit his former spouse. The author emphasizes that, no matter how crucial his role was in the organization, it still would take some time before an arrested person would reveal who his friends were, or before the reopening of cases relating to the democracy movement could be instigated, which would lead to increased suspicion against the author. The author adds that he took precautions to avoid persecution, including through the use of a false name in the neighbourhood following his release in 2001, and his request to be informed of the register held by the democracy organization as to who was wanted, so he could be warned. 5.6 The author submits that, since the State party had credibility concerns as to the author’s allegations, it would have used all the available investigation resources, as repeatedly proposed during the asylum proceedings, in order to make their decisions. The author refutes the State party’s conclusions on his perceived lack of credibility, as they contrast with the findings of the Board, which considered as fact that the author had been detained and tortured, and that he continued to oppose the communist regime despite his arrest and detention. He argues that the State party, having accepted that the author had opposed the regime for at least 14 years, did not accept or believe, without adequate substantiation, that he was now in danger, only because it had taken more than five months for the police to start looking for him after the arrest of one of his leaders. Because of this contradiction regarding credibility, the Board should have given the benefit of the doubt to the author, or at least to allow his sister to testify. His sister, E.L., could have elaborated on the family’s anti-communist background, their attitude against the regime, under which she had also been exposed to torture many years ago, and on the way the author had refused to leave for safety reasons, but had wished to continue to fight for democracy. She could also have explained that the author had been extremely nervous as he waited between July and December 2012; and that the torture he had suffered in the past had affected his ability to explain himself. While the State party argues that the sister’s case files had been taken into account when the Board made its decision on 4 September 2013, the author argues that those files had only been given to the counsel 10 minutes before the hearing on 4 September 2013. 10 The State party has not clarified when the Board itself had received those files, so it is assumed that it was only on 4 September 2013. Since the Board handles several cases a day, the decision adopted in the author’s case was written and handed over to him and his counsel on the same day. The author submits that the Board’s decision of 4 September 2013 seemed as a hasty conclusion, without a thorough review of all relevant material and without admitting the presentation of supporting evidence. He also underlines that the Board’s decision contained several mistakes in dates. Finally, the author generally 10 The author’s sisters also refer to this in their letter to the Board dated 12 September 2013. 9