CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014 counsel, since the author had been removed to Afghanistan on 2 August 2015. In his comments, the counsel (Mr. Helge Nørrung) informed the Committee that the priests and other Christian friends of the author had continued to worry about the author’s well-being and safety. 7.2 The counsel submits that the author was “available” as of 10 July 2015 when he was detained, following which the author sent an application to the Immigration Service, on 28 July 2015, regarding his residence for other reasons (Aliens Act, art. 9c (1)), as he hoped for postponement of his expulsion. On 31 July 2015, the National Police informed the counsel that the Immigration Service had no objections to the author’s deportation. The counsel requested the police officer concerned to contact the Immigration Service once again, but there was no response. On 2 August 2015, the counsel visited the author in the Ellebaek prison, together with his priest. On 3 August 2015, not knowing whether the deportation had actually taken place, the counsel forwarded the author’s application for residence for other reasons to the Board, together with a request for the asylum proceedings to be reopened. It was only later that day that the counsel learned that the author had been deported and had arrived in Kabul.18 7.3 In reference to the thorough decision by the Refugee Appeals Board of 17 December 2015, the counsel submits that the sincere Christian activities of the author have been described in six different letters, dated from 10 March 2015 to 26 July 2015. He points to a perceived inconsistency in the Board’s decision, in which it considered that the counsel should have submitted important new information before the author’s deportation was carried out, whereas the Board refused to assess new information because the author was not in Denmark. 7.4 The counsel claims that the facts as presented in the initial communication, including the author’s interest in Christianity, had already begun during his transit in Greece where he prayed in churches, had continued with him attending religious services on Sundays and church instruction on Thursdays in Denmark, and had culminated with his baptism. That information was substantial enough for the request for reopening of the asylum proceedings to be granted when he was still in Denmark so that an additional hearing could take place. When reopening of the asylum proceedings was not initiated and the State party’s observations were not favourable, the counsel applied for residence for the author for other reasons. In the meantime, the counsel intended to submit all the additional documents from priests to the Committee. However, since the deportation date was announced very late, the counsel only managed to send five single documents to the Committee on 30 July 2015, a few days before the deportation, whereas the full views appeared in the counsel’s comments dated 2 October 2015. 7.5 Finally, the counsel emphasizes that the rejection of the author’s asylum by the Board on 11 February 2014 was based on only one-and-half hour long hearing of the author, that his baptism and active Christian life had already been documented in the initial communication and that the priests referred to above had known the author for more than 18 months. 7.6 The counsel concludes that the author is at imminent risk of being exposed to serious harm and even threat to life, and that he is not able to practise his religion, and therefore recommends that the Committee reconsider issuing a request for interim measures to ask the State party to invite the author back to Denmark. This would enable the Board to conduct the additional hearing based on the important supplementary information submitted to it by the counsel. The counsel claims that the alleged violations of articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant by Denmark would remain a reality if the deportation is not revoked. 18 10 The counsel attached a copy of the email correspondence with the police officer concerned.