CCPR/C/125/D/2494/2014 author has not explained what caused such a lapse of time between the two dates. In the absence of further details, the Refugee Appeals Board has refused to reopen the author’s asylum case, considering that the author failed to establish that his conversion was genuine. The Board therefore found that the author would not be at risk of persecution falling within section 7 of the Aliens Act if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 8.8 The Committee further notes that although the author contests the assessment and findings of the Danish authorities as to the risk of the harm he would have faced in the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his conversion, he has not presented any evidence to substantiate his allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The author has also failed to provide any pertinent information to the Committee to justify his claim that his alleged conversion is indeed known to the Iranian authorities, that he is practising Christianity in the Islamic Republic of Iran or that he has been targeted by the Iranian authorities on the basis of his conversion. 8.9 The Committee considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements available when evaluating the risk faced by the author and that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process. The Committee also considers that, while the author disagrees with the decision of the State party’s authorities not to reopen his case, he has not shown that the decision of 28 July 2014 was arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. Consequently, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the author have not adduced sufficient grounds for demonstrating that, following his deportation, he ran a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. In view thereof, the Committee is not able to conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant have been violated because of his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it do not permit it to conclude that the author’s expulsion to the Islamic Republic of Iran has violated his rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 11