CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments dated 27 February 2015, the author asserts that, in citing the Court of Appeals decision, the State party acknowledges that if his conversion is genuine he will have the right to asylum in Norway, as Afghans who convert to Christianity are at risk of persecution in Afghanistan. Moreover, the author maintains that in accordance with the concept of refugees sur place status, it is well established under international human rights law that an applicant’s need for asylum may change depending on personal circumstances and/or country conditions. The author reiterates his claim that the State party did not comply with its obligations under article 7 because it did not consider relevant facts that arose after the Board’s most recent decision dated 15 December 2011. 5.2 The author emphasizes that he “has been believed all the time and practically speaking at all levels of the Christian community [to] which he has comprehensively belonged in Norway”. The author submits that the State party has not provided any material evidence to substantially undermine his conviction, apart from the “questionable inferences made from rather … general assumptions that the majority of the Immigration Board and the Appeals Court relied upon”. The author further maintains that the State party’s authorities have not conducted any assessment of his religious beliefs by independent experts and asserts that the Board and the Norwegian court judges do not possess such religious expertise. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee notes that under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, and Norway’s reservation to this provision, the Committee is precluded from examining a matter that is being examined or has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that on 1 October 2014, the European Court of Human Rights declared the author’s application inadmissible. 9 The Committee notes, however, that the Court’s decision does not set forth a justification for the inadmissibility finding and that there is no clarification as to the basis of the decision. 10 It 9 10 The author provides a letter from the European Court of Human Rights dated 1October 2014 concerning his application No. 64743/14 against Norway to prevent his deportation to Afghanistan. In the letter, the Court states: “In light of the material in its possession and insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court found that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention had not been met.” In a subsequent letter dated 10 October 2014, the Court recalls that the author’s application was declared inadmissible and that the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not contain any provision for appeal against a decision by which the Court has declared an application inadmissible. See communication No. 1636/2007, Onoufriou v. Cyprus, decision of inadmissibility of 25 October 2010, para. 6.2 (communication inadmissible under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol), note 15 (“Four decisions were adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in the author’s case, three of which were declared inadmissible, while one was decided on the merits, regarding a different matter than the issues presented by the author before the Committee.”); communication No. 1510/2006, Vojnović v. Croatia, Views of 30 March 2009 (communication inadmissible under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol because although the European Court had considered the same matter, it had declared the application inadmissible ratione temporis); communication No. 168/1984, V.O. v. Norway, decision of inadmissibility of 17 July 1985, paras. 4.2-4.3 (communication inadmissible under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol because the European Commission on Human Rights had already found the same matter to be inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded); communication No. 13