CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014 asylum request had been refused by the Board; and that his statements about the motives for his conversion were general and superficial, especially taking into account the significance of Islam in Afghan society. Subsequently, the Board assessed whether the author could be at serious risk in Afghanistan, regardless of the motives of the conversion. The Board noted that he had answered in a superficial and evasive manner the questions relating to the consequences in Afghanistan for himself and his family in relation to his reported conversion, and found that he had not rendered probable that he would be at risk of persecution in Afghanistan merely owing to his appearance among other persons into a video from an Iranian church in the Netherlands uploaded to YouTube, and to the fact the other Afghan failed asylum seekers in Denmark and a friend in Afghanistan had learned about his conversion. While the author disagrees with the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board, the Committee considers that the author expressed fears that are of general nature and not based on specific facts that would put him at risk in view of his personal circumstances. Moreover, the author has not pointed to any procedural irregularities in the decision-making procedure that would show elements of arbitrariness by the Danish authorities. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that any rights enshrined in the Covenant have been violated in the present case. 12. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Afghanistan would not violate his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 11