CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016 in 1989 by Wang Bingzhan. It considered that the author had not stated how the leader of the organization had established contact with him, taking into account that he had not dared to contact anybody else in China, not even his friends. The Board found that the author’s statement that it had been necessary for him to wait to for his visa application to be attended and to leave China lawfully out of consideration for his autistic son, could not lead to a different assessment as the Board had already considered his claims and concluded that the author had not proved that he had been pursued by the Chinese authorities. 4.11 Regarding the author’s political and religious activities in Denmark and his reference to two articles of 6 April 2014 and 19 November 2014 posted on the website www.ndt.tv (China Forbidden News) with two photos of the author at a demonstration in Denmark on 1 October 2014 against the Chinese communist regime, the State party observes that those photos had already been produced by the author when requesting the Board to reopen his asylum case. In its decision of 24 September 2015, the Board found that the photos had not warranted the reopening of his case. The Board observed that only a copy of an undated photo of the author at a demonstration had been produced, without providing any details as to the websites on which it had been posted, and that no further documentation or information on the author’s participation in other demonstrations after 1 October 2014 had been produced. The State party considers it conspicuous that the photos taken on 1 October 2014 were only uploaded in 2016, just one month before counsel lodged the author’s communication with the Committee. Consequently, the author has not rendered probable that he would risk persecution or abuse in case of return to China. The fact of belonging to a non-recognized denomination in China, which has millions of followers in China, including in the author’s province, and the closing down of the Meixin Church in China cannot lead to a different assessment. The author is only an ordinary member of the Church and did not have any personal conflicts with the Chinese authorities due to his faith prior to his departure from China. 4.12 Regarding the author’s claim that, on 24 September 2015, the Board rejected his request to call a witness at the hearing, the State party submits that that decision was adopted considering that a witness would not have direct relevance to the author’s grounds for asylum, other than proving his general credibility. Calling a witness is a prerogative rather than duty. In the case under review, the Board considered that the reasons given in support of the request had been that the author’s sisters would have been able to elucidate the author’s experiences and relate them to their common background, information that the Board already had. 4.13 The State party observes that the author’s sisters were granted asylum in Denmark in 1992 and 1998, respectively, and that they were therefore not with the author when he carried out his activities in his country of origin. The conflicts of the author’s sisters in China also date far back in time, compared to the time of the author’s activities in his country of origin and the date of the author’s application for asylum in Denmark. Therefore, the author sisters’ information are not directly linked to his grounds for asylum. Moreover, the author did not refer to the “circumstances” of his sisters during the asylum proceedings preceding his request to have his asylum case reopened. 4.14 As regards the author’s comments on the absence of examination for signs of torture before its substantive assessment, the State party observes that the Board only initiates an examination for signs of torture if it has been proved that an asylum seeker has previously been subjected to torture, and it also finds that there is actual or real risk that the concerned asylum seeker will be subjected to torture once again on return to his or her country of origin. Although in its decision of 4 September 2013, the Board accepted as a fact that the author had been arrested and tortured in 2001, it could not accept that the author’s alleged position and high profile would lead to a risk of persecution justifying asylum upon his return to China, even when taking into account the 2012 incidents. Since there was no real and actual risk that the author would be subjected to torture upon his return to China, the Board rejected the request made by his counsel for an examination of the author for signs of torture. The author’s observations in that regard merely reflect his disagreement with the Board’s assessment of the evidence, which is not relevant in the State party’s view. 4.15 The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessments conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the 7