CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014 party to adopt measures that are conducive to protecting life. In the Committee’s 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 in 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 the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high. 7 The State party’s obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in section 7 (1) and (2) of its 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. 4.7 The author has not provided any new information to the Committee that has not already been reviewed by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board. In its decision of 27 March 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board considered that the author had failed to establish that he had been persecuted before his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran for not wanting to work for the Basij militia any longer. In that respect, the Refugee Appeals Board emphasized that the author’s statements on his conflict prior to his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran had to be set aside as non-credible.8 The author has thus failed to substantiate that he was subjected to a risk of persecution prior to his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran because of a conflict with the Basij. Therefore, the author will not risk abuse falling within the scope of articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant if he returns to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.8 With regard to the author’s alleged conversion to Christianity, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board made a specific and individual assessment of the author’s submissions and the statements at the Board hearing and in the written material, including the reports of the author’s interviews conducted by the Danish Immigration Service, but found that there was no basis for granting the author a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act. As appears from the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision of 27 March 2014, the majority of the members found that the author had failed to establish that his conversion to Christianity was genuine, despite the certificate of baptism dated 8 April 2013 and declarations produced by the pastor and the Pentecostal Church, as well as his knowledge of the Christian faith. 4.9 The determination as to whether the author’s activities during his stay in Denmark are assumed to derive from a genuine Christian persuasion depends, in particular, on the assessment of the author’s statements about his religious persuasion as compared with the other circumstances relied upon in the case. This approach is in line both with paragraph 96 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 9 and with paragraph 34 of the “Guidelines on international protection: religion-based refugee claims under article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status 7 8 9 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. The Refugee Appeals Board found that the author had failed to substantiate that he would be at risk of persecution or abuse falling within sect. 7 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act as a result of his refusal to continue to work for the Basij. It emphasized that the author’s statement on his membership of the Basij must be dismissed due to lack of credibility on essential points because, inter alia, the author had made different statements on his period of membership and on his work for the movement. At the asylum interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service, the author stated that he had been put under pressure to fabricate information about demonstrators, whereas during the proceedings before the Refugee Appeals Board, he stated that he had not let himself be put under pressure to fabricate such information at any time. Paragraph 96 reads: “A person may become a refugee sur place as a result of his own actions, such as associating with refugees already recognized, or expressing his political views in his country of residence. Whether such actions are sufficient to justify a well-founded fear of persecution must be determined by a careful examination of the circumstances. Regard should be had in particular to whether such actions may have come to the notice of the authorities of the person’s country of origin and how they are likely to be viewed by those authorities.” 5