CCPR/C/119/D/2253/2013 claims that he was asked why he had not requested an extension for his passport before it expired, and that the fact that he was born in Iraq caused “some problems”, as there were discussions as to whether he should be deported to Iraq. After the questioning, he was detained for three days and then released. The police kept his passport and he was told that he should return to the passport office for further questioning and to recover his passport. 5.2 In October 2013, as instructed, the author went to the passport office in Tehran. He was asked to fill out a questionnaire with questions similar to those he had been asked when he arrived. He was also asked to indicate how he left the Islamic Republic of Iran and to provide information on who had helped him to leave the country. He was detained for 48 hours, his passport was not returned to him and he was informed that the authorities were analysing his situation and that consequently he could not leave the country. He was instructed to stay in the Kermanshah area. The author further claims that intelligence officers were present during the interrogations. After the questioning, he went back to his grandparents’ house in the village of Pabli, where he is hiding and looking for a way out of the country, as he is afraid that the authorities will find out that he criticized the Government during his interview with the film director. 5.3 The author further submits that other Iranian asylum seekers who were interviewed for the film have been granted refugee status in Denmark on the grounds of their participation in the film.21 Further submissions by the State party 6.1 On 24 June 2014, the State party provided further observations to the Committee. It refers to the author’s allegation that his participation in the interview with the film director would increase the risk he would be exposed to in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to the author’s allegation that in a similar case, the Refugee Appeals Board had granted refugee status to another asylum seeker who had given an interview for the same film. The State party indicates that the circumstances of the other asylum seeker were very different from those of the author. For example, that asylum seeker had been politically active in both the Islamic Republic of Iran and in Denmark, unlike the author, and therefore the Board had considered as fact that the asylum seeker had been taking part in different activities in Denmark where he had been criticizing the Iranian regime to some extent. Moreover, the majority of the Board had attached weight to the fact that the asylum seeker had been interviewed for the mentioned film and considered as fact that it had been shown on Iranian television, where it came across as a propaganda film for the Government. Therefore, the Board had considered that the asylum seeker had sufficiently established the probability that he would be exposed to a risk if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as it was possible that the film had been transmitted to the Iranian authorities. The Board, taking into account the asylum seeker’s background and the fact that he had left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally, had found that the asylum seeker would be at risk of persecution if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran.22 6.2 The State party further reiterates that the Refugee Appeals Board takes its decisions on the basis of a specific and individual assessment of the applicant’s asylum grounds, the Board’s knowledge of the general situation in the relevant country and the specific details of the case. Therefore, the State party maintains that there is no basis for doubting the assessment made by the Board in its decisions of 28 April 2010 and 27 March 2013, in which the Board considered that the author had not established that there were substantial grounds for believing that his life was in danger or that he faced a risk of torture or illtreatment in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Furthermore, the State party notes that from the information provided by his counsel, it does not appear that the author has been subjected to torture or ill-treatment since being returned. 6.3 The State party therefore reiterates that the communication should be declared inadmissible as it is manifestly ill-founded. It also reiterates that the author’s allegations 21 22 8 The author provides a copy of a decision of the Refugee Appeals Board dated 18 November 2013 and a partial unofficial translation of the decision. See footnote 24 below. See footnotes 21 and 24.