CCPR/C/125/D/2494/2014 3.3 The author also claims a violation of articles 13 and 14, in conjunction with articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant, on the grounds that no other person in Denmark would be denied the right to have a totally new issue (i.e. conversion) considered by a competent administrative body and/or be allowed to appeal a negative decision before a court. The Danish authorities rejected his right to a new hearing on behalf of the five members of the Refugee Appeals Board. His right to a fair trial has thus been violated in a discriminatory manner by the decision of 28 July 2014 because that was not a decision of the Refugee Appeals Board as a Board, but only the decision of a staff member with the consent of the Chair/a judge. Other asylum seekers have converted after receiving a negative decision by the Refugee Appeals Board and have consequently had their cases reopened with positive decisions being handed down. The author should have had the same opportunity to be allowed a new hearing where he could have presented all the evidence related to his conversion and thus allowed all five members of the Refugee Appeals Board to make an assessment. 3.4 Finally, whether or not he showed an interest in Christianity after the first decision by the Danish Immigration Service and by the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be used as a factor in assessing the author’s religious convictions only in written proceedings and in the absence of a hearing by the Board. Had he wanted to fake his religious conviction, he could have declared that he was a converted Christian when entering Denmark. The author therefore feels offended by this indirect allegation and considers the decision as a violation of his right to change religion, given that the decision will have serious consequences for him if deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 9 June 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It stated that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee declare it admissible, the Covenant would not be violated if the author was returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and articles 2, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant would not have been violated in connection with the hearing of the author’s asylum case by the Danish authorities. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board,10 and the legislation that applies to asylum proceedings.11 It then submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under articles 2, 6, 7, 13 and 26 of the Covenant, in the absence of substantial grounds for believing that he is in danger of being deprived of his life or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran or that those provisions have been violated in connection with the consideration of his case by the Danish authorities. Those elements of the communication are therefore manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.3 The Committee’s practice under article 14 of the Covenant is that proceedings relating to the expulsion of an alien 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), but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 12 Against that background, this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.4 On the merits, the author has failed to establish that his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant and that articles 2, 13 or 26 have been violated in connection with the hearing of his asylum case. In its general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, the Committee discussed both negative and positive components of the right to life, that is, the right of a person not to be deprived of his life arbitrarily or unlawfully by the State or its agents and the obligation of the State party to adopt measures that are conducive to protecting life. Under the Committee’s 10 11 12 4 See Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. See sections 7 (1)–(3) and 31 (1)–(2) of the Aliens Act. See X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 8.5, and Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 6.3.