CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014 reverend at the Bodø city church dated 15 August 2014 and a bishop in Sør-Hålogaland dated 15 August 2014, and alleges that these individuals all clearly and unequivocally confirm his faith as being genuine and that he had a “broad and good understanding of Christianity” in November 2011.4 3.4 The author also claims that the State party violated his rights under article 2 (3) of the Covenant in that the letter issued by the Immigration Appeals Board on 28 August 2014 indicates that the State party is unwilling to provide him with the appropriate nonrefoulement protection, even though they are aware of facts that substantiate his need for such protection. The author asserts that this letter seems to provide a way for the authority to choose whether or not to conduct a new review of the issues, thus making it impossible for the author to seek redress from the Committee by effectively putting him in a position whereby the State party can claim that he must again exhaust domestic remedies. The letter gives no indication of when a review can be conducted or what form it would take, putting the author in a very vulnerable position. 3.5 The author further submits that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to declare his application inadmissible does not render his communication before the Committee inadmissible because the Court’s decision was issued by a single judge and did not provide a rationale. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 26 January 2015, the State party does not challenge the admissibility of the communication. Regarding the author’s assertion that the communication is not manifestly ill-founded, the State party emphasizes that this admissibility criterion does not exist within the framework of the Covenant. The State party provides background information concerning Norwegian legislation on asylum and additional information concerning the author’s domestic asylum proceedings. The author’s initial asylum application, dated 11 August 2009, was based on the alleged kidnapping incident in 2008. It was rejected because the kidnapping was deemed not to qualify as a 4 The statement from the city church pastor, dated 15 August 2014, states that the author was baptized on 6 February 2010 and has “studied and practised his Christian faith in many different ways”, namely by attending Alpha courses that are designed for those who wish to know more about the Christian faith; studying at Bible school for two semesters; visiting several conferences focusing on prayer and evangelism at a prayer centre in Levanger, Norway; and attending “Encounter Festival,” a youth event designed to equip individuals for ministry. The statement from the bishop, dated 15 August 2014, states in full: “I have met [the author] several times during the last one and a half years. I have talked with him about his faith and his conversion to Christianity, and I have heard about his life as a Christian from people around him and from the congregation he is attending. On this basis, I can give [the author] my best recommendation as a sincere and committed believer and follower of Christ.” The statement from the former senior priest, dated 22 September 2014, states that he based his initial assessment of the author’s conversion on the minutes of the Board meeting on 22 March 2011. The priest states that based on the minutes, he was “struck by the extent of [the author’s] Christian commitment at that stage: personal prayer and Bible reading; activities in Saltstraumen parish (Tuesday meetings, Sunday services, Alfa-meetings (a very detailed educational programme); activities in Løding Bedehus [house of prayer]; prayer meetings; during a stay in Oslo also contact with an Iranian congregation. He has later been active in the charismatic Bykirka in Bodo. To me, these were indications of conviction and consequences dating back more than a year before the UNE meeting and interview of March 22, 2011, and proof of considerably more than what one would expect from a rank and file member of the Church of Norway. It was evidence of a deliberate choice. What more could he have done?” The priest further states that the author gave adequate answers to the questions asked of him at the Board meeting concerning his faith and that at a meeting of the subcommittee of the Lawyers’ Association in November 2011, it “quickly emerged that [the author] knew considerably more than the minutes of the previous UNE meeting and interview had conveyed”. 5