CAT/C/61/D/625/2014 credibility and his specific circumstances, found that he had failed to demonstrate that he would be at risk of torture if returned to Pakistan. For instance, based on the time that had elapsed between the incidents mentioned by the complainant as grounds for asylum, the Board found that he had failed to substantiate that he was persecuted for religious reasons, whether by public officials or other groups. In addition, the State party recalls that given that the complainant had made inconsistent and contradictory statements during the asylum proceedings, the Board did not accept them as facts. 17 The State party recalls that the Board found that although the arrest of the complainant in 2012 may have happened, he could not demonstrate that the reason for his arrest was other than illegal possession of alcohol. In addition, it considered that given that he was subsequently released and that he had not been contacted in relation to this matter afterwards, his claim that he had been assaulted during interrogation could not independently justify asylum. The State party further recalls that the Board emphasized the nature of the assault, which resulted in no permanent injuries, as well as the long time that elapsed between his release and his departure from Pakistan. 4.9 The State party considers that the complainant is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body and that his complaint merely reflects the fact that he disagrees with the assessment of his credibility made by the Board. It also indicates that the complainant failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board had failed to take properly into account. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which it is for the State parties to examine the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which the evidence was evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 18 4.10 The State party further submits that the complainant’s allegation that the police would consider him a person of interest upon arrival at the airport in Pakistan owing to his scars has not been substantiated in any way. 4.11 Regarding the complainant’s reference to Amini v. Denmark, 19 the State party indicates that it is different from the present case, as in that case the complainant provided objective evidence that he had been subjected to torture in his country of origin immediately before his arrival in Denmark. He also demonstrated that he would be at risk of torture if returned. As regards the complainant’s allegation that his case is similar to K.H. v. Denmark,20 the State party indicates that, in that case, the Board considered to be true the complainant’s allegations that he would be subjected to torture by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan. 4.12 As regards the general situation of Christians in Pakistan, the State party indicates that it is not of such a nature that the complainant, who was born Christian, risks persecution because of his religion, taking into account that he is a very low-profile person. The State party refers to a report by the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 21 according to which there are an estimated three to four million Christians in Pakistan, who, although they experience discrimination and assaults, are not subject to official legal sanctions against them on the basis of their religion. 22 The State party further indicates that legal provisions on blasphemy do not automatically result in criminal charges and imprisonment. 23 The State party also refers to another report by the Home Office, which indicates that, despite discrimination, Christians are able to practice their religion in Pakistan: they can attend church, participate in religious activities and have 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 6 See paras. 2.5 and 2.6 above. See communications No. 148/1999, A.K. v. Australia, decision adopted on 5 May 2004; and No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006. See para. 3.2 above. Ibid. See United Kingdom, Home Office, “Pakistan: country of origin information (COI) report” (London, 2013). Available at www.refworld.org/docid/5209feb94.html. The State party also refers to a report in Danish by Landinfo, “Thematic memorandum on Pakistan: situation of Christians”, 20 June 2013. Ibid.