Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2458/2014 the author’s conflict with the Taliban and the authorities after he had left the country. Finally, the Board observed that the author’s overall credibility has been impacted by his statement that, in connection with his previous application for asylum in Norway in 2003, he was paid to obtain asylum for another person, and by the inconsistent statements made to the Norwegian authorities. The Board further noted that the author failed to provide a convincing statement that would substantiate that he has de facto converted to Christianity. When interviewed on 12 December 2013,15 the author was asked about his knowledge of the Bible. He stated that he had read the Bible in prison, but did not mention in that connection that he had started taking an interest in Christianity already at that time. 16 Moreover, it has been peculiar that, as soon as he had informed the Danish authorities about his conversion, he started communicating his Christian affiliation on the Internet. Following an overall assessment, the Board found that the applicant has failed to substantiate that he will be at a real risk of persecution or abuse, falling within section 7 of the Aliens Act, in case of return to his country of origin. Accordingly, as there has been no basis for adjourning the proceedings pending a statement from the IMS on the author’s employment, or for the purpose of assessing the authenticity of the warrant for his arrest, the Board upheld the decision of the DIS of 30 April 2014. 4.6 The State party has elaborated on the relevant domestic law and procedures, including the organisation and jurisdiction of the Board, legal basis for its decisions and proceedings before it, and reopening of asylum proceedings before the Board. 4.7 Furthermore, the State party submitted comments on factually incorrect or contradictory information in the author’s communication to the Committee. 4.8 As regards admissibility, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under articles 2, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant, and that the communication should be considered inadmissible. It further submits that the parts of the communication referring to articles 2, 6, 7, 13 and 26 of the Covenant should be considered inadmissible also for being manifestly illfounded. As regards article 14 of the Covenant, the State party refers to the views adopted by the Committee in Mr. X and Ms. X. v. Denmark, 17 in which the Committee stated that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens (asylum proceedings) do not fall within the ambit of a determination of ‘rights and obligations in a suit at law’ within the meaning of article 14(1) of the Covenant. The author’s claim under article 14 of the Covenant is therefore inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.9 On the merits, the State party submits that should the Committee find the communication admissible, it has not been sufficiently established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the return of the author would constitute a violation of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant, or that article 13, or articles 2 and 26, of the Covenant have been violated in connection with the consideration of the author’s asylum case by the Danish authorities. In his communication, the author has not provided any new information in regard to his situation in Afghanistan. 15 16 17 The following appears from the report of the interview with the author conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 12 December 2013, which report the author has accepted: ‘The applicant was asked whether he had the Bibles because he was a Christian. The applicant replied in the negative. The applicant was asked whether he had read the Bibles. The applicant stated that he had not read them in Afghanistan, but that he had read the Bible in Denmark because he had wanted to know what was in it that could result in his execution.’ The subsequent report by the Danish Immigration Service in connection with the consultation of the author, which report the author has also accepted, stated: ‘The applicant had been released on 10 December 2013, and on 15 December 2013 he had gone to the church of Apostelkirken in Copenhagen. On 22 December 2013, the applicant started attending Grønnevang Church in Hillerød. The applicant was asked why he had not mentioned his interest in Christianity at the previous interview since his interest had to be aroused at that time as the interview took place on 12 December 2013. The applicant stated that he had only read the Bible at that time, but that he had not discovered the good things about Christianity until he had started attending church.’ See communication Mr. X and Ms. X. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 6.3. e. 5