CCPR/C/133/D/2623/2015 Advance unedited version 7. The author contests in this regard (para 5.2) that he submitted extensive evidence to support his claim in his PRRA application, including his brother’s burial certificate, which confirmed that he had been executed by hanging in jail by the Iranian authorities. He also included his baptism certificate and other photos and documents confirming his conversion as well as a letter from his pastor stating that the author was a witnessing and evangelizing member of his congregation. Furthermore, his name and conversion to Christianity had been made public on the internet by church activists and the PRRA officer himself accepted that he had converted to Christianity. However, the officer concluded that the author was a Sufi, and as such not a follower of Islam, which is an error, as the Sufi faith is indeed a sect of Islam and Sufis are persecuted by the Iranian regime for not following the state sanctioned religion, thereby increasing the risk the author would be facing if returned to Iran. The author further notes that Amnesty International continues to express concerns about the continued persecution of Christian converts in Iran, since conversion from Islam, or apostasy, may be punished by death if the convert refuses to reconvert to Islam (para 5.3). Finally, the author refers to the fact he is a member of a congregation that is expected to proselytize and that even if he was not required to proselytize, he should not be required to practice his faith in secret, in fear, and without a church or fellowship with others. Even having a Bible in Iran would place him at risk should the regime ever find it (para 5.4). 8. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, in order to assess whether a person is at risk of persecution, on the basis of his/her conversion, if returned, the test is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that such a conversion may have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin such as to create a real and personal risk of irreparable harm as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 9. In the present case, the Committee observes that it is not contested that the author’s conversion was considered to be genuine by the State party authorities (para 7.6). However, the parties disagree as to whether the author has been a public and proselytizing member of his congregation. In this respect, one has to take into account the information from the author’s pastor that he is a witnessing and evangelizing member of his congregation, and therefore accept the author’s argument that he should not be expected to conceal his faith and religious activities in order not to be subjected to persecution and also accept his claim that his name and conversion to Christianity has been made public on the internet in relation to membership of his congregation. One has moreover to take into account the fact that the author was previously detained and questioned about his conversion in 2012 while visiting Iran for just one month, as well as his claim that his brother was executed as an opponent to the regime and several members of his family have been persecuted. 10. In view of all these elements, considered together with country reports on the situation of Christian converts who may have come to the attention of the authorities, we are of the view that the State party failed to conduct a sufficiently individualized assessment of the author’s case to determine whether there were substantial grounds for believing the existence of a real and personal risk of irreparable harm, as contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, were the author to be removed to Iran. 12