CCPR/C/119/D/2253/2013 under articles 19 and 26 are inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae. The State party further indicates that if the Committee finds the communication admissible, it should declare it as not substantiated on the merits, as the author has not established that there are substantial grounds for believing that his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran constituted a violation of articles 7, 19 and 26 of the Covenant. Further submissions by the author 7.1 On 5 August 2014, the author’s counsel submitted further comments on the State party’s observations. Counsel informs the Committee that in the case in which the Refugee Appeals Board granted refugee status to another asylum seeker who had been interviewed for the film referred to by the author, 23 the Board had rejected the asylum seeker’s initial application, as it had not considered that he had been politically active in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Board had also rejected two requests to reopen the case, submitted by the same asylum seeker on 10 October 2008 and on 1 March 2012; only after the third request to reopen the case on the grounds of his political activities in Denmark had the Board granted the asylum seeker refugee status. Counsel indicates that in that third request, the asylum seeker did not submit new information on his political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran and that during the hearing held on 18 November 2013, he had been asked only about his political activities in Denmark. 24 Therefore, counsel considers that the Board based its decision on the asylum seeker’s political activities in Denmark, and not on those in the Islamic Republic of Iran, contrary to what the State party asserts in its observations. Counsel further submits that it seems clear in the Board’s decision in the above-mentioned case that the main reason why the asylum seeker was granted refugee status was his interview for the film, and not his other activities in Denmark, including his role as spokesperson of the hunger strikers. 7.2 The author’s counsel further reiterates that the author could also be considered as politically active both in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Denmark, as he had participated in the smuggling of material on the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan from Iraq to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and while in Denmark he had participated in demonstrations and taken part in a hunger strike against the Iranian regime, during which photographs of him were taken and disseminated through his Facebook profile. In addition, like the other hunger strikers, the author gave an interview for the above-mentioned film, in which he identified himself with his real name and criticized the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Counsel further reiterates that after giving the interview, the author learned that the film was propaganda for the Iranian regime, that it had been shown on Iranian television, and that the parts in which the hunger strikers appeared to be criticizing the Government 23 24 Board decision of 18 November 2013. See also paras. 5.3 and 6.1 above. The author provides a full unofficial translation of the Board’s decision dated 18 November 2013. The decision indicates that the applicant had alleged that in the Islamic Republic of Iran he had been a member of a forbidden political party, the Jebbheyeh Melli Mazhabi, for three years, that he had carried out several political activities while in Denmark, including as the spokesperson of those engaged in the hunger strike, and that he had participated in demonstrations, interviews and “exposing” articles. The applicant had also alleged that he feared that the Iranian authorities would recognize him because he had been filmed beating a police officer before leaving the Islamic Republic of Iran and because he had appeared in photographs that had been published by Iranian media, in which he could be seen participating in political activities in Denmark. The Board’s decision referred to a “video sequence” and a radio interview in which the applicant had criticized the Danish refugee system and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and mentioned that the asylum seeker had been interviewed by an Iranian-born film director residing in Germany who had been filming a documentary on asylum seekers in Denmark. The Board had access to a clip in which it appeared that the film had been shown on national television in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It found that the asylum seeker had credibly explained his participation in the film and the views he expressed in it, and took into account that it appeared that the film had been edited to serve as propaganda for the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Board found probable that the asylum seeker could be exposed to a risk if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, given his participation in the film in conjunction with his illegal departure from the country, and considered that the asylum seeker could be questioned by the Iranian authorities on the assumption that his departure, long absence and participation in the film could reflect a critical attitude towards the Government. Therefore, the Board had granted him refugee status. 9