CCPR/C/125/D/2439/2014 4.7 First, the printouts of the Facebook activities of the author failed to show his baptism, but showed instead more general Christian messages. Nonetheless, the printouts showed that all these updates to his Facebook profile had been made within the last half hour prior to the printing of the images. Given the general lack of credibility of the author, the Board considered that the Facebook updates were made precisely for the purpose of making a subsequent printout of the pages that could be used in the author’s asylum case. 4.8 Second, the information provided by the author about alleged reactions to himself and his family was completely unsubstantiated. Third, the author was baptised on 16 December 2012, but failed to state in connection with the Board hearing one month later, on 16 January 2013, that he had uploaded photos of his baptism on Facebook. On the contrary, he declared in his request to reopen proceedings that these updates had been made immediately after his baptism. He stated that he was happy about being baptised and wanted to share this with his friends; he had therefore uploaded photos of the ceremony without thinking of the consequences. 4.9 The Board referred to information according to which Facebook is not monitored on a systematic basis and many people use Facebook without being concerned about potential monitoring. 21 The authorities can control activities on Facebook only if a friend of the individual applicant is an agent of the authorities. Therefore, the notices to appear before an Iranian court because the author had allegedly converted from Islam could not lead to a different assessment. In view of their nature and the moment when they were produced, together with the general facts of the case, these documents appear to have been fabricated for the occasion. Forged documents, including notices to appear, are widespread and easy to obtain in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore, the Refugee Appeals Board found no reason to request an assessment of the authenticity of the documents. 4.10 The Board also considered that the author had failed to render probable that he had become a person of interest to the Iranian authorities as a result of his participation in three demonstrations in front of the Iranian Embassy in Copenhagen. The photographs produced as evidence do not reveal the name of the author and do not show a demonstration in progress in front of the Iranian Embassy in which the author is a participant, but a staged scene where the author poses for the photographer holding the material used in the demonstration. The photographs therefore appear to have been taken for the purpose of clearly showing the author holding the various material in his hands. In addition, the photographs were not taken in front of the Iranian Embassy in Copenhagen, but along a garden belonging to a property located about 100 metres and around a corner from the embassy, making it invisible from the Embassy. The author has not stated the time of the demonstration, and there is no available information or documentation regarding the other demonstrations in which he participated according to his statement. 4.11 After presenting the findings of the decision of 25 November 2014 of the Refugee Appeals Board, the State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Board,22 as well as the legislation applying to asylum proceedings. 23 It then submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility under articles 6, 7 and 14 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 the author’s asylum case by the Danish authorities. These parts of the communication are therefore manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.12 The practice of the Committee 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 21 22 23 6 Danish Immigration Service, “Update on the situation for Christian converts in Iran: report from the Danish Immigration Service’s fact-finding mission to Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey and London, United Kingdom, 25 March to 2 April 2014 and 10 April to 11 April 2014” (Copenhagen, June 2014). Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. Sections 7 (1)–(3) and 31 (1)–(2) of the Danish Aliens Act.