CCPR/C/114/D/2389/2014 4.9 The State party considers that the author has not been politically active, even to a modest extent. He became a member of the Kurdistan Freedom Party three or four months before departing Iraq and his motivation was not political, but rather linked to his desire to play football in the Party’s sports section. Furthermore, the author only provided practical assistance in the organization of Kurdistan Freedom Party meetings. Therefore, the State rejects the author’s claim that he will be forced to hide his political beliefs if he is returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party notes that it does not find as a fact that the father of the author was a member of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, owing to the author’s divergent statements regarding his father’s political activities, combined with the fact that his brother did not mention that his father had been a member of the Party during his asylum proceedings. 4.10 The State concludes, in line with the refugee appeals board, that the author has failed to render probable his claim that his father had been actively involved in politics in the Islamic Republic of Iran or that the family’s combined activities in the refugee camps in Iraq had been of such a nature and intensity that he would be at risk of being subjected to treatments contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The State party therefore considers that the author’s return to the Islamic Republic of Iran will not constitute a violation of article 7. 16 4.11 With respect to the author’s claim regarding the violation of article 26 of the Covenant, the State party notes that the refugee appeals board bases its decisions on a concrete and individual assessment of each case, taking into consideration the relevant background material available at the moment when the decision is made. The State party further refers to the leading decision made by the refugee appeals board in December 2012, which changed the practice of the board regarding asylum seekers born and raised in the Al-Tash refugee camp. The decision established that, regardless of the fact that the asylum seeker was born and raised in Al-Tash refugee camp, he failed to demonstrate that he would be at risk of persecution falling within the definition of section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party notes that the referred decision has been published on the website of the board and has also been mentioned in the its 2012 report of activities. The State party further indicates that, in 2014, the board reviewed seven cases of asylum seekers born and raised in the Al-Tash refugee camp and that, in all of them, the board considered that this fact could not in itself justify granting the asylum. The State party concludes that the author was not discriminated against by the decision of the board of 18 March 2014, as it reached a different conclusion from the one reached in his brother’s case, based on an individual and concrete assessment of the author’s situation made in compliance with the board’s practice. 4.12 The State party notes that, on 16 May 2014, the refugee appeals board suspended the time limit for the author’s departure from Denmark until further notice, in compliance with the Committee’s request. Considering that the author has failed to render probable that, if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, he would be at risk of suffering irreparable damage, the State party calls on the Committee to lift its request for interim measures. 4.13 On 22 July 2015, the State party provided additional observations reiterating that the complaint was ill-founded and that the author did not substantiate violations of articles 7 and 26 of the Covenant. Furthermore, the State party stated that the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan membership card of the author’s father did not prove his militancy in that party, as the copy provided by the author in January 2015 had been issued on 5 January 2015, after the final decision of the refugee appeals board. 16 8 The State party refers to the Committee’s views in communication No. 2186/2012, Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5.