CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012 activities for the movement since her most recent release from detention, had allegedly again become of interest to the authorities. Furthermore, the Board emphasized that the author did not leave China until a good three years after her most recent release, that her departure was legal and that her fear was not supported by other objective circumstances and evidence. Although the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities on her asylum application, she has failed to demonstrate that the decision to refuse her protection under sections 7 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s removal to China was contrary to articles 7 and 18 of the Covenant. 12. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to China did not violate her rights under articles 7 and 18 of the Covenant. 12