CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014 Author’s comments on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 11 September 2014, the author submitted his comments on admissibility and the merits. 5.2 He submits that during the proceedings his explanations have been very consistent and have contained no contradictory information. He points out that the only reason for the Refugee Appeals Board’s refusal of his application for asylum was that it considered it unlikely that he had brought the flyers to school and had not left them in the car in which he had gone to school; in addition, he points out that the State party maintains in its observations that it does not matter whether he drove to school in his own car or went by taxi and walked the last ten minutes. The author submits that, on the contrary, it does matter, because the Refugee Appeals Board’s refusal is based on an assessment of probability. In that connection, the author submits that he explained to the Board that he took a taxi to school and walked the last ten minutes. Therefore, the Board’s decision is based on a misunderstanding of relevant facts of the case. The author also argues that his account cannot be disregarded as improbable on the basis of subjective and undocumented considerations which are unsubstantiated, as he gave no contradictory or imprecise accounts and the background material supported his claims. 5.3 He reiterates that his tattoo should be seen as a public way of showing his disagreement with and opposition to the Iranian authorities and points out that the crucial matter is that the Iranian authorities will assume that he has converted to Zoroastrianism. Regarding his Facebook activities, he repeats that the Iranian authorities monitor Iranians residing outside the Islamic Republic of Iran and that he is therefore at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.8 5.4 He also submits that the State party did not comment on the fact that he might be at risk because he left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.9 The Committee has noted that the author unsuccessfully appealed the negative asylum decision of the Danish Immigration Service to the Refugee Appeals Board and that the State party does not challenge the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author. 8 9 8 The author refers to a report from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (20 January 2014). See communication No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 7.4; and communication No. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5.