CCPR/C/133/D/2458/2014 Advance unedited version 4.10 The Board found in its decision of 16 July 2014, following an overall specific assessment, that the author had failed to substantiate that he would be at a real risk of persecution or abuse falling within section 7 of the Aliens Act in case of his return to Afghanistan. The Committee, in its jurisprudence, has indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds for establishing that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 18 The Board found that it could not consider the author’s statement of being persecuted prior to his departure from Afghanistan a fact because the Board emphasized that the author’s statement on his conflicts prior to his departure from Afghanistan had to be set aside as non-credible and fabricated. The documents enclosed with the author’s request for reopening his asylum proceedings of 22 September 2014 could not lead to a different assessment. In the present communication, the author did not provide any new information about his circumstances in Afghanistan prior to his departure, hence the author has failed to substantiate that he has been or risked being subjected to persecution in Afghanistan. 4.11 As regards the author’s conversion sur place, the Board in its decision relied on the variety of information provided about the author’s persuasion and Christian activities after his arrival in Denmark. Based on an assessment of the credibility of the information on the author’s conversion, carried out in accordance with the UNHCR guidelines 19 , the Board found that it had to reject the genuineness of the author’s conversion from Ismaili Islam to Christianity and reject that he consequently risks persecution justifying asylum under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, on his return to Afghanistan. In this context, the Board could not find as facts that the author has become or risks becoming a person of interest to the Afghan authorities solely because of his activities on the relevant weblog. The Board referred to the circumstance that the author does not appear to be profiled in any way in Afghanistan, just as the Board could not accept as a fact that the alleged conversion is genuine. The information about the author’s attendance of a Christian summer camp and about his baptism on 12 September 2014 did not cause the Board to revise the legal assessment of his eligibility for asylum. Against that background, the State party finds that the author has failed to establish that he risks circumstances contrary to article 6 or 7 of the Covenant as a consequence of his alleged conversion to Christianity if returned to Afghanistan. 4.12 As regards the allegations of a violation of article 13, the State party submits that the author has not substantiated this claim in any way. Moreover, article 13 of the Covenant does not confer a right to a court hearing. In Anna Maroufidou v. Sweden20, the Committee did not dispute that a mere administrative review of the expulsion order in question was compatible with article 13. In addition, article 13 does not confer a right to appeal.21 If an asylum seeker, like the author in the present case, claims that essential new information has come to light as compared with the information available when the Board made its original decision and that this new information may result in a different decision, the Board will make an assessment of whether this new information may lead to reopening of the proceedings for reconsideration of the case. Accordingly, the Board’s decision of 25 November 2014 to refuse reopening of the author’s asylum proceedings was made by the Board, as represented by the judge who chaired the specific board that made the original decision in the author’s case. Against that background, the State party submits that article 13 of the Covenant was not violated in connection with the consideration of the author’s asylum case by the Danish authorities. 4.13 Concerning the claims under articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant, as the author’s right to a fair trial was violated in a discriminatory manner, the State party observes that the author has not been treated differently from any other person applying for asylum in terms of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. As regards the alleged refusal by the Board to allow a witness who, 18 19 20 21 6 See communication J.J.M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2. UNHCR Handbook (para. 96) and UNHCR Guidelines of 28 April 2004 (para. 34) state, inter alia: ‘Where individuals convert after their departure from the country of origin, this may have the effect of creating a sur place claim. In such situations, particular credibility concerns tend to arise and a rigorous and in depth examination of the circumstances and genuineness of the conversion will be necessary.’ See communication no. 58/1979. Mr. X and Ms. X. v. Denmark, para. 6.3.