CCPR/C/114/D/2389/2014 5.5 The author considers that the issue at stake is not whether the State party considers the author or his family to be politically active, but whether the Iranian authorities will perceive the author as such. The Iranian authorities take Kurdish separatism very seriously and, according to available background information, their reaction is difficult to predict. In addition, it is known that the Iranian authorities use torture in the context of imprisonment. Therefore, the author considers that the “benefit of the doubt” should apply in his case, in line with UNHCHR guidelines, as the foreseeable consequences of his deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran would be extremely severe. 5.6 The author concludes that he has sufficiently substantiated his allegations as to his risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and requests that interim measures be maintained. 5.7 With regard the alleged violation of article 26, the author states that the board decision referred to by the State party as that which determined the change of practice regarding asylum seekers born and raised in the Al-Tash refugee camp in fact did not concern an asylum seeker from that camp, as the person concerned had not been able to prove that he was from this refugee camp. According to the author, in this case, the Danish immigration service argued that if the board had considered the asylum seeker to be a former resident of Al-Tash, he would had been recognized as a refugee based on section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act. However, as it was not the case and the person concerned had spent years in Iraq, it was considered that he would be able to seek protection in Iraq as his first country of asylum, pursuant to section 7 (3) of the Act. The author therefore alleges that his case was the first one in which the board decided to change its practice of granting asylum to all former residents of Al-Tash who had been recognized as refugees by UNHCR. The author further claims that, from the board’s decision of December 2012 to the decision adopted in his case on 18 March 2014, the Danish authorities did not adopt any decision denying asylum to former residents of Al-Tash who had been recognized as refugees by UNHCR. 5.8 The author also contests the statement that, in its decision of 18 March 2014, the refugee appeals board considered new available background information, in contrast to the information available at the time when the asylum proceedings of the author’s brother had been decided, in 2010. The author argues that there was no objective reason to reach different conclusions in his case and his brother’s case, that he has not had an equal protection of the law under similar circumstances, and that he has therefore been treated in a discriminatory way by the State party. The author therefore considers that he has sufficiently substantiated his allegations as to the violation of article 26 of the Covenant by the State party. 5.9 Finally, the author contests the State party’s affirmation that he is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body. He considers that he has sufficiently substantiated that he would be at risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a conclusion that can be reached on the basis of the information provided to the Committee by the parties, including the reports quoted by the State party as background information. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 10