CCPR/C/117/D/2291/2013 them at their business and the last letter had arrived about 10 days before they left Pakistan. During the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, the female author stated that the first threat had arrived in early 2012, in the form of a folded piece of paper left in front of their front door, and that several identical letters had arrived thereafter every 7 to 14 days. 4.3 On her asylum application, the female author stated that a cross had been put on the wall of their house at night one day, about four or five months before they left Pakistan. She stated that, thereafter, crosses were regularly put on the wall of the house, sometimes every day, and at other times once a month. During his interview with the Service, the male author alleged that a cross on a house wall signified that an Ahmadi lived there and was a target for killing. The male author did not know if the cross had been put on the house wall once or several times, but stated that “it” had occurred about six months before the authors’ departure. He did not know who had done it. During their interview with the Service, the authors further stated that the male author’s nephew had been killed during an attack on a mosque on 28 May 2010.5 During his interview with the Service, the male author further stated that he had left Pakistan for health reasons and due to the general situation for Ahmadis; that Ahle Suntal and Ahle Hadees, groups opposed to the Ahmadi religion, were pursuing the authors due to their faith; and that he feared being killed by members of those groups or the Taliban. The authors stated that no further incidents had occurred since their departure from Pakistan. 4.4 On 8 May 2013, the Service denied the authors’ asylum application. During their hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, the authors reiterated their allegations concerning the letters and the cross. The female author stated that other Ahmadis had received threats similar to the ones the authors had received. 4.5 The State party provides a translation of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board. The Board accepted that the authors were Ahmadis and took note of their claim that their nephew had been killed on 28 May 2010 during an attack at an Ahmadi mosque. It accepted the authors’ allegations that they had received threatening letters beginning in June 2012 and that unknown individuals had painted a cross on the wall of their house around the same time. The authors had alleged that the threatening letters each contained three lines of Urdu, all stating that the authors would be killed if they did not convert to Sunni Islam or leave Pakistan. The Board noted that, beyond this, the authors had not been subjected to abuse. The Board observed that there were between 2 and 4 million Ahmadis in Pakistan and that Pakistani legislation had significantly restricted their ability to practise their faith. As a result, Ahmadis were often threatened and harassed by unspecified other groups. 5 4 According to the transcript of the authors’ interview with the Danish Immigration Service, the male author stated that his nephew had died instantly during this attack in Allama Iqbal, Lahore, and that he had not gone to mosque services that day for Friday prayers because he had been very ill. He further stated that the female author and their children had not gone to the mosque that day either, because they were not allowed to. He had learned of the attack from a police officer with whom he was smoking in a café. Later, at about 8 p.m. that evening, his sister’s son had come to their home and informed them of the death. The female author told the Danish Immigration Service that, on the day of the attack, the authors were being driven by their driver to the mosque for Friday prayers when their son called to say that there were armed individuals in the mosque nearby. According to the female author, the authors had run to the mosque to try to bring their nephew to safety, but had not entered because of the presence of armed individuals and a suicide bomber. They had remained outside the mosque for about three hours and had heard shots being fired. When asked about the inconsistency in the authors’ statements on this issue, the female author maintained that she had been present outside the mosque with the male author on the day of the attack. During the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, the male author stated that he had learned of the attack on the mosque while sitting outside his home and talking to acquaintances. Both he and one of the acquaintances had received phone calls regarding the attack. The authors had then taken a rickshaw to the mosque.