CCPR/C/125/D/2494/2014 jurisprudence, States parties are under an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, whether in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.13 The State party’s obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in section 7 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act, according to which a residence permit will be issued to an alien if he or she risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to his or her country of origin. 4.5 The author has failed to state his previous asylum grounds in his complaint to the Committee, referring merely to his alleged conversion from Islam to Christianity. As rightly observed by the Refugee Appeals Board, based on his previous grounds for claiming asylum, the author has failed to render it probable that he will risk persecution justifying the granting of asylum in the event of his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has been incumbent upon the author to leave Denmark voluntarily since 1999, except for a brief period in 2007 when the Refugee Appeals Board had extended the time limit for his departure. In practice, it has been possible for the author to return, but he has not been willing to meet his obligation to return voluntarily. During that time, it was not possible to forcibly return Iranian nationals to the Islamic Republic of Iran because the Iranian authorities were not willing to facilitate the entry into the country of its own nationals who did not wish to enter voluntarily. Thus, it is exclusively a result of the author’s own situation that his stay in Denmark extended over such a long period of time after the Refugee Appeals Board originally refused to grant him asylum. 4.6 In its decision of 28 July 2014, the Board considered that the author had failed to establish that his conversion to Christianity was genuine, despite a certificate of baptism. No information was produced as to how and when the author’s interest in Christianity had arisen or how he practises his faith. The Board further found it strange that the author only provided information on his baptism shortly before a planned return, while his baptism took place in the autumn of 2012 and the certificate of baptism was dated 6 June 2013. The Board could not therefore accept as a fact that the author’s conversion from Islam to Christianity was genuine. Any asylum seeker must substantiate his claim that the conditions being granted asylum are met. The author’s only statement was that he had converted and that he had been baptized. He had not elaborated on any circumstances linked to his conversion, either before the Refugee Appeals Board or the Committee. 4.7 Moreover, the author relied on this new ground for claiming asylum only when he requested the reopening of his case on 27 May 2014, one and a half years after his baptism on 23 November 2012 and shortly before a planned deportation from Denmark. It also appears from the information provided by the author that the document confirming his baptism was not issued until 6 June 2013, six months after his baptism. Thus, taking into account the author’s conduct, including the fact that he has relied on new asylum grounds on an ongoing basis since 1998, which have been refused by the Refugee Appeals Board, and that he has consistently refused to comply with the decision of the Danish authorities that he should leave the country, the author has been well aware of the possible significance of conversion from Islam to Christianity to his asylum case. Thus, his conversion fails to express a genuine and deep conviction. 4.8 Public debate in Denmark in general, and among asylum seekers in particular, has focused considerably on the significance of conversion, typically from Islam to Christianity, for the outcome of an asylum case. It is therefore common knowledge among asylum seekers and other parties within the field of asylum that information on conversion is a ground for asylum, but that the issue must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Refugee Appeals Board has granted asylum in many cases in which it accepted that conversion was genuine and that the asylum seeker would practise his new faith on return to his country of 13 See A.A.I. and A.H.A. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014), para. 6.5, and X. v. Denmark, para. 9.2. 5