CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014 of the panel of the Board that examined the original asylum request also considered the author’s request for reopening the case in the light of additional information submitted by the author and concluded that such information was not significantly new with respect to that initially available when the Board had dismissed his asylum request. While the author disagrees with the conclusions reached by the State party’s authorities, the Committee considers that the author has failed to submit convincing arguments that such conclusions were manifestly erroneous or denial of justice or clearly arbitrary. 11.5 With regard to the author’s conversion to Christianity, the Committee notes his submission that he started to take an interest in Christianity when he arrived in Denmark; that he converted to Christianity in 2013 and was baptized on 16 June 2013; that since he has lived openly as a Christian, Afghan failed asylum seekers have harassed him at the Ellebaek asylum centre; that he informed his mother and friends in Afghanistan about his conversion; that his conversion puts him at risk of persecution if returned to Afghanistan; and that the Afghan authorities would be unable to protect him. 11.6 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the Chair of the panel of the Refugee Appeals Board that examined the author’s original asylum request, and subsequently a full new panel of the Board, examined the information provided by the author on his reported conversion to Christianity and found that his conversion had not been genuine and that the author had not rendered probable that he would be at risk of persecution if returned to Afghanistan. 11.7 The Committee notes that the reports cited by the parties 17 and others that had been in the public domain when the Refugee Appeals Board examined the author’s asylum request on 15 September 201618 indicate that conversion from Islam is considered apostasy in Afghanistan; that under the courts’ interpretation of Islamic law it is punishable by death; that if someone converts to another religion from Islam, he or she shall have three days to recant the conversion before being subject to the punishment for apostasy; and that persons perceived as contravening sharia law, including converts from Islam, and persons perceived as contravening the Taliban’s interpretation of Islamic principles, norms and values may be in need of international refugee protection on religious grounds, depending on the individual circumstances of the case. 11.8 The Committee considers that, when an asylum seeker submits that he or she has converted to another religion after his or her initial asylum request has been dismissed in the country of asylum, it may be reasonable that an in-depth examination of the circumstances of the conversion be carried out by the authorities. 19 The test remains, however, whether, regardless of the sincerity of the conversion, there are substantial grounds for believing that such conversion may have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to create a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, even when it is found that the reported conversion is not sincere, the authorities should proceed to assess whether, in the circumstances of the case, the asylum seeker’s behaviour and activities in connection with or to justify his or her conversion, such as attending a church, being baptized, participating in proselytizing activities, could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put him or her at risk of irreparable harm. 11.9 In the present case, the Committee observes that it is not contested that, after starting to attend a Christian church, the author was baptized on 16 June 2013; that he has attended church services and participated in other Christian activities for a period of more than three years; and that, in those settings, he has been perceived as a sincere Christian believer. The Refugee Appeals Board also considered it a fact that he had acquired knowledge of Christianity that was not insignificant. Nevertheless, the Board based its conclusions that the author’s conversion was not genuine on the fact that he had not indicated his interest in Christianity before the Danish Immigration Service and the Board in 2012; that he only started to become better acquainted with Christianity in March 2013, after his original 17 18 19 10 See the Eligibility Guidelines (footnote 5 above), pp. 46-47. Ibid., pp. 53-56. See Guidelines on International Protection (footnote 9 above), para. 34.