CCPR/C/119/D/2253/2013 risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.29 9.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the State party failed to take into account that he faces a risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment because of his deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as he is an ethnic Kurd and carried out illegal activities before his departure from the country, namely, smuggling Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan material into the Islamic Republic of Iran, and because of his political activities against the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran while in Denmark, in particular his participation in demonstrations against that Government and in a hunger strike held in May 2012. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the Refugee Appeals Board undertook a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence submitted by the author and, on the basis of that examination, considered that the author was not credible, as he had provided contradictory information regarding his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that his activities while in Denmark would not expose him to a risk upon return, since he had not demonstrated that he was exposed to the press or that he stood out to any particular degree, as he did not appear to be prominent in any of the photographs of the hunger strike to which the domestic authorities had access. The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that the Committee must give considerable weight to the domestic authorities’ findings, specifically those of the Refugee Appeals Board, as it is better placed to assess the facts in the author’s case. The Committee observes that the author has not pointed to any procedural irregularities in the decision-making procedure by the Danish Immigration Service or the Board. Nor has he demonstrated that the decision to return him to the Islamic Republic of Iran was manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary in nature. 9.5 The Committee further notes the author’s allegation that the interview he gave to a film director in which he criticized the Iranian authorities would enhance the risk he is exposed to insofar as the film director supports the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and may therefore have provided the authorities with a full copy of the film in which the author identified himself and expressed anti-Government views. The Committee also takes note of the author’s allegation that the Refugee Appeals Board has granted refugee status to other asylum seekers who appeared in that film and that such participation was considered by the Board as a crucial element for deciding those cases. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author never mentioned the interview during the asylum proceedings, that the information is solely based on his statements and that he has not provided any satisfactory explanation as to why he did not mention it to the State party’s authorities. The Committee also notes that in the decisions regarding other asylum seekers who participated in the film, the Refugee Appeals Board made an integral assessment of the personal circumstances of the applicants, which differ from those of the author. The Committee therefore considers that while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the Board, he has failed to show that they were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous or amounted to a denial of justice. 9.6 In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author would have faced a personal and real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant because of his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran did not violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 29 12 See, inter alia, communications No. 2280/2013, Y. v. Canada, para. 7.5; No. 2258/2013, Rasappu v. Canada, Views adopted on 4 November 2015, para. 7.3; and No. 2366/2014, X. v. Canada, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 9.3.