CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 mean that the person will become vulnerable upon return, since Afghans show great understanding for compatriots who try anything to obtain residence in Europe. The State party adds that paragraph 36 of the UNHCR “Guidelines on international protection: religionbased refugee claims under article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees” states, inter alia, that: “So-called ‘self-serving’ activities do not create a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in the claimant’s country of origin, if the opportunistic nature of such activities will be apparent to all, including the authorities there, and serious adverse consequences would not result if the person were returned.”15 6.10 The State party observes in this respect that the circumstance that a person has been baptized and has participated in various religious activities does not independently render it probable that the said person has in actual fact converted. In every single asylum case in which a person claims to have converted, the Refugee Appeals Board therefore makes an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the case, including the asylum seeker’s educational background, knowledge of Christianity, motives for the conversion, considerations of the consequences of the conversion, the entire process preceding the conversion, participation in church activities and the general credibility of the asylum seeker. 6.11 The State party further observes that the Refugee Appeals Board found in its decision of 6 February 2014 that the conversion was not genuine. The circumstance that the author has undertaken several activities of a Christian nature does not independently render it probable that these activities reflect genuine faith. For the same reason, the State party also finds that statements from persons who have met the author in a church context or have expressed an opinion about the author’s faith cannot independently be found to lead to a different assessment. The State party finds that such persons will have difficulty assessing whether the conversion is genuine, or whether the author merely acts as is expected of him in that religious context. The State party therefore cannot consider as a fact solely on the basis of the production of such statements that the activities subsequently undertaken by the author reflect genuine faith. 6.12 The State party reiterates its position that, in the event of the author being removed to Afghanistan, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, he would not risk abuse owing to his age and ethnicity (see para. 4.15 above). Accordingly, the State party finds that the general situation in Afghanistan, including in Kabul, is not in itself of such a kind that, for that reason alone, the author meets the conditions for being granted asylum. 6.13 The State party observes that the Afghan authorities agreed to take the author back when he was forcibly removed on 17 March 2014. 6.14 In conclusion, the State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board made a thorough assessment of the author’s specific circumstances and the background information available and found that he had failed to support the plausibility of his claim that he would be in danger of being killed or subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he was removed to Afghanistan. In the State party’s opinion, the author’s communication merely reflects that the author disagrees with the Board’s assessment of his specific circumstances and background information. In his communication, the author also failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. The author is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances put forward in support of his asylum claim reassessed by the Committee. However, the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings made by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances in the author’s case. There is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the Board’s assessment, according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being killed or subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he was removed to Afghanistan. Against this background, the author’s removal to Afghanistan would not constitute a violation of articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. 15 12 See also X v. Norway (CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014), para. 7.6.