CCPR/C/121/D/2612/2015 not attracted attention to himself because of his alleged sympathy and support for the Muslim Brotherhood and that he had not performed any activities for the Muslim Brotherhood of a nature likely to make him a subject of interest to the Egyptian authorities. The State party also notes that, in the country information and guidance on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, issued by the United Kingdom Home Office and updated on 30 September 2014, it is stated that, although the Government of Egypt is able, under Egyptian law, “to detain anyone suspected of membership of the Muslim Brotherhood, arrests and detentions have primarily been of high and mid-level leaders and those taking part in protests against the government which have become violent”. The report also states that, given the sheer scale of the number of members and supporters, the Government is unlikely to have the capacity, capability or interest in seeking to persecute everyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. It further states that there is no evidence to suggest that merely being a member of, or, in particular, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood will put a person at risk of persecution. Against that background, the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author’s sympathy and support for the Muslim Brotherhood did not independently entail that he would risk persecution or abuse if returned to Egypt to justify asylum in Denmark under section 7 (1) or (2) of the Aliens Act. The changed situation in Egypt resulting from the events in 2012 and 2013 relating to the presidential elections and subsequent removal of President Mursi could not lead to a different assessment of the case either. 4.9 The author’s communication to the Committee merely reflects that he disagrees with the credibility assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board in his case. It does not identify any irregularities in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. Accordingly, the State party maintains that the author is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. However, the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the findings of fact in the author’s case. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 23 January 2017, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations and reiterated his previous claim that the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision of 28 April 2015 arbitrarily dismissed his asylum request and that his removal to Egypt would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 5.2 The author maintains that the State party has misinterpreted the memorandum, in particular concerning the fact that upon return to Egypt, he will be subject to seven years’ imprisonment or more. The State party’s observations are based on the assumption that he is not “wanted” by the Egyptian authorities and omits parts of the memorandum that are relevant to his case. Notably, the memorandum states that a draft evader who left Egypt twice would be considered a repeat draft evader and subject to no less than seven years imprisonment under article 50 of the Military Conscription Law. However, the Military Prosecutor could also seek the assistance of the General Prosecutor in such cases, since the draft evader would be classified as “wanted” by the authorities and a stricter penalty could apply in accordance with the Penal Code. He claims that this would be the case even if the draft evader was 30 years old or more and that the penalty for draft evasion was normally enforced. 5.3 The fact that, in 2007 and 2008, the Egyptian authorities detained and subsequently released him without consequences and the Egyptian embassy in Rome issued a passport in the author’s name in 2012, does not mean that he is not “wanted” by the authorities today. The author highlights that he should be considered as “wanted” by the Egyptian authorities mainly because he did not show up for his military service and he left the country twice illegally, even though upon his return the last time, the authorities had told him to report to the conscription office. 5.4 The author alleges that, although he is not a prominent supporter or member of the Muslim Brotherhood, he could easily be identified as a member or supporter of the organization since he is from Al-Fayyum, a city where the Muslim Brotherhood has strong support. In that connection, he submits that the assessment of the risk he would face in 7