CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014 the asylum seeker’s behaviour and activities in connection with, or to justify, his or her conversion, such as attending a church, being baptized or participating in proselytizing activities, could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put him or her at risk of irreparable harm.30 8.6 In the present case, the Committee observes that it is not contested that, after starting to have contact on Skype with a pastor who taught him about Christianity, the author was baptized on 8 April 2013, participates actively in parish work, and has informed his family about his conversion. The majority of the Board members also conceded that the author has knowledge of the Christian faith. Nonetheless, the Committee notes that the Board’s majority focused its reasoning on the sincerity of the conversion, concluding that the author had failed to establish that his conversion was genuine because of inconsistencies in his statements, such as the date of his first meeting with Z.A., the moment when he considered himself to have converted and his family’s reaction to his conversion. 8.7 In this connection, the Committee recalls that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk that a person might face if deported, and considers that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the author would face as a perceived Christian in the Islamic Republic of Iran, rather than relying mainly on a matter of conflicting dates. The Committee notes in particular that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board did not assess whether the author’s behaviour and activities in connection with, or to justify, his conversion, including his baptism, his active participation in the parish, his knowledge of Christianity, and his informing his family of his conversion, could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put him at risk of irreparable harm.31 In view of the above, the Committee considers that the State party failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to the Islamic Republic of Iran as a convert. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the State party failed to take into due consideration the consequences of the author’s personal situation in his country of origin, and concludes that his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would, if implemented, violate his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, in which it is established that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to proceed to a review of the author’s case taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant and the Committee’s present Views. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author while his request for asylum is being reconsidered. 11. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has 30 31 See S.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014), para. 11.8. Cf. European Court of Human Rights, F.G. v. Sweden (application No. 43611/11), judgment of 23 March 2016, para. 156. Cf. Danish Immigration Service, “Iran: house churches and converts”, February 2018, available at www.refworld.org/docid/5ab8f2de4.html; United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, USCIRF Annual Report 2018, Tier 1: USCIRF-recommended countries of particular concern: the Islamic Republic of Iran, 25 April 2018, available at www.refworld.org/docid/5b278edb0.html; Home Office (United Kingdom), “Country policy and information note: Iran: Christians and Christian converts”, March 2018, available at www.refworld.org/docid/5aa2aa2e7.html; Congressional Research Service (United States of America), “Iran: politics, human rights, and U.S. policy”, 3 October 2017, available at www.refworld.org/docid/59e884b44.html; and Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation, “Query response: Iran: House churches; situation of practising Christians; treatment by authorities of Christian converts’ family members”, 14 June 2017, available at www.refworld.org/docid/5943a44d4.html. 13