CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014 (g) As noted by the Board, the author’s explanation of the conflict over land contained elements that make it appear improbable, as it is unlikely that the victorious party in a land conflict would rekindle the conflict many years later by kidnapping a younger family member; (h) The author has given different explanations about his contact with his father since he left Afghanistan, as he stated at his asylum interview in November 2008 that he had spoken to his father once since leaving Afghanistan and that his father stated that he was doing fine, whereas in the appeal of September 2009, he stated that his father had told him that the family had received threats and that all the windows in “the shop” had been smashed the day after the author left Afghanistan; (i) In his statement to the Board dated 4 September 2010, the author stated that he had become acquainted with Christianity through a friend before arriving in Norway, whereas in his meeting with the Board, he stated that he first became acquainted with Christianity through P in Norway and had not previously had any information about Christianity; (j) When asked about the latter conflict in his testimony, the author stated that he had on one occasion accompanied his friend to the home of an acquaintance where a Christian prayer meeting was taking place and that the attendees, whom the author did not know, “read books and prayed to God”; however, it is highly unlikely that an underground Christian church in Afghanistan would permit an unknown Afghan to participate in a prayer meeting, given the testimony of the country adviser that the process of gaining access to underground Christian churches in Afghanistan can often take several years due to the high risk involved in attending these services. 4.12 In concluding, in the light of the aforementioned elements, that the author’s conversion was not genuine, the Court of Appeals stated that it had “carefully considered the elements that might indicate that [the author’s] conversion is genuine – his baptism, his knowledge of the Christian faith, his participation in various Christian contexts and activities, and the testimony of witnesses who have met [the author] and regarded him as being a genuine Christian”. The Court also stated that it had considered that “a more lenient standard of proof applies given that the consequences of an incorrect decision in a case of this kind would be serious”. In its overall assessment, however, the Court concluded that “it is not reasonably probable that [the author] had a Christian faith at the cut-off point, 15 December 2011”. 4.13 The Court of Appeals then proceeded to assess whether the author’s allegation that he had converted in itself represented a basis for asylum. The Court considered the testimony of the country adviser on Afghanistan, who explained that, pursuant to the Islamic criminal code, which is based sharia, converts are given an opportunity to recant. The Court also considered the testimony of the Board’s representative, who stated that there are no known cases among the more than 20 converts of convenience who have been returned from Norway to Afghanistan encountering problems after their return. On that basis, the Court found that the author had no real reason to fear persecution upon his return to Afghanistan. 4.14 In response to the author’s claim that the Court of Appeals erred by requiring him to meet a stringent burden of proof, the State party notes that the Court applied a standard of proof according to which “it is sufficient that the invoked grounds for asylum are seen as being reasonably probable.… [The Court] does not find reason to apply a somewhat more stringent standard of proof, as argued by the State.… The Court of Appeals’ assessment of evidence is also guided by the UNHCR’s Guidelines.”6 6 10 The Court of Appeals decision cites the full text of paragraphs 34 and 35 of the UNHCR Guidelines.