CCPR/C/117/D/2291/2013 However, the Board found that the authors had not substantiated their claim that they would face a specific and individualized risk of persecution or abuse in Pakistan. The Board reasoned that the persecution endured by the authors had been of “limited severity”, as they had only been subjected to threats for a short period of time before their departure. Moreover, these anonymous threats were “of a nature similar to the nature of anonymous threats to which many [Ahmadis] have been subjected”. The Board also took into account the female authors’ statement that the authors’ sons still lived in the same house in Lahore in which the authors had lived, continued to work in the family business and had not been subjected to harassment following the authors’ departure. The Board stated that the generally difficult situation for Ahmadis in Pakistan could not in itself justify granting a residence permit to the authors. 4.6 On 25 April 2013, in a separate procedure, the authors applied for residence permits on humanitarian grounds. Their humanitarian application was denied, but, on 2 September 2013, the authors applied to have it reopened. 4.7 On 25 October 2013, the Immigration Service approved the authors’ application for financial support for assisted voluntary return to Pakistan. By letter dated 10 January 2014, the authors stated that they no longer wished to avail themselves of the financial support scheme for the purpose of assisted voluntary return. Accordingly, on 29 January 2014, the Immigration Service withdrew its approval of this financial support. 4.8 The State party considers that the communication is manifestly unfounded and is therefore inadmissible and devoid of merit. The authors have not established substantial grounds for believing that they would face a specific and individualized risk of treatment contrary to article 7 in Pakistan due to their religious beliefs. There is no evidence indicating that they were particularly singled out or that the crosses on their house were followed by verbal threats. The authors stated several times to the Danish authorities that they had been harassed in the same way as other Ahmadis and had not received any verbal threats. On 25 April 2013, the male author stated during his interview with the Service that no one had ever sought the authors out in person, face to face. On 19 August 2013, the female author stated during her hearing before the Board that the authors had not received any direct verbal threat. The decision of the Refugee Appeals Board was well founded and based on a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case and on current background material on the situation of Ahmadis in Pakistan. 4.9 Concerning their claim under article 18 of the Covenant, the authors were born in 1935 and 1945, respectively, have always been Ahmadis, and had always lived in Pakistan until November 2012. The authors cannot be required to hide their religious beliefs in order to avoid encountering problems in Pakistan. However, the Board found that the situation that they risked facing there was not so severe as to indicate a well-founded fear of persecution by authorities or private individuals as a result of their religious beliefs. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In submissions dated 26 and 27 August 2014, the authors inform the Committee that, on 22 May 2014, the Ministry of Justice decided to reopen the authors’ application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. Their deportation was stayed pending a determination on these proceedings. 5.2 Concerning the State party’s observation on their application for financial support for assisted voluntary return to Pakistan, the authors maintain that, when they were summoned to an interview with the Danish police, they were motivated to sign documents, including a form for voluntary return assistance, out of a fear of being detained and removed to Pakistan. There was nothing voluntary about the situation. 5