Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2458/2014 due to the sharia law, if returned. Consequently, the author has established a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility. 6.4 The author concludes that his communication should be considered as admissible, in regard to alleged violations of articles 6, 7, 13, 18 and 26 of the Covenant, since he did not get a fair trial as concerns his conversion to Christianity, and his fear of persecution for this reason. Since he could not appeal the decision of the Danish Refugee Board to any other body, it has amounted to a violation of articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant, asserting that any other Board decisions may be appealed to the ordinary Danish courts. As to the merits, the author considers that the Refugee Appeals Board decision of 6 February 2014 30 amounts to a violation of articles 6 and 7, and of article 13, as well as of article 18 of the Covenant, since he cannot manifest his religion in Afghanistan. State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 23 September 2019, the State party reiterated its initial arguments of inadmissibility and lack of merits, dated 10 March 2015. 7.2 It recalled that on 27 November 2018, the Secretariat transmitted the author’s additional observations to the Government, dated 19 November 2018. The State party notes that on 31 December 2018, the Secretariat transmitted another document, originating from the author’s counsel, dated 26 October 2017 under communication no. 2458/2014. However, the content of this document did not correspond to the communication at hand and the submissions therein do not seem to originate from the author. Thus, the State party limits its observations to the author’s additional comments dated 19 November 2018. 7.3 The State party observes that the author’s additional comments of 19 November 2018 do not provide any new information regarding the author’s personal situation. In this regard, the Government especially notes that the additional observations do not provide any information on the author’s personal situation after his return to Afghanistan. 7.4 In his additional comments, the author states that the Board did not consider the consequences for the author, upon his return to Afghanistan, of his alleged conversion to Christianity. In this regard, the Government notes that the Board, in its decisions of 16 July 2014 and 25 November 2014, explicitly and specifically assessed the consequences of returning the author to Afghanistan, including the implications of the author’s alleged conversion. 7.5 In this context, the State party also observes that the Board did not find it probable that the author would risk persecution as a consequence of his return to Afghanistan as the Board did not consider the author’s conversion from Islam to Christianity to be genuine. 7.6 The State party draws the attention of the Committee to the report published by Landinfo, Afghanistan: Situasjonen for kristne or konvertitter (Afghanistan: The situation of Christians and Converts), of 4 September 2013,31 on ‘converts of convenience’. It appears from the report (page 22) that several sources have stated that even if it becomes known in the country of origin that the relevant person has indicated conversion as his ground for seeking asylum in another country, this does not mean that the relevant person will become vulnerable upon his return, as Afghans in general have great understanding for compatriots who try everything to obtain residence in Europe. 7.7 The author has also referred to communication no. 2423/2014, in which proceedings before the Board have been reopened because of the emergence of new and substantial information. In this respect, the State party notes that no new information has emerged in the author’s case beyond what the Board has already taken into account in its decisions, that the author did not establish how his case is otherwise comparable to communication no. 2423/2014, and that the author has not established that any errors were made in the Board’s evaluation of the author’s case. 7.8 The author finally refers to a memorandum of 15 September 2016 from the Danish Police on the deportation to Afghanistan of four asylum seekers. The State party observes in 30 31 See fn. 28. In particular pages 19 to 22. 9