CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014 without the involvement of the State or its agents, and that it was not established that the Pakistani authorities would be unwilling or unable to protect the authors from such risks, taking into account that the authors did not file a complaint with the police in Pakistan after the attacks. The Committee also notes that it is uncontested that the authors were not harassed because of their religious beliefs prior to the events of May 2012, but that they argue that the risk of harassment if they are deported is greater due to the generally deteriorating situation in Pakistan for Christians and the increased threat posed by the country’s blasphemy laws. 7.6 The Committee considers that the Board conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case and concluded that the authors had not had any conflict with the Pakistani authorities, and that the isolated incidents related to I.G.’s disagreement with some schoolmates and could not lead to the authors being granted protection status under section 7 of the Aliens Act because the conflict was not of such intensity or nature that it could justify the granting of asylum. Although the authors challenged the Board’s composition and the quality of the translations and the interpretation of statements presented to it, their claims in that regard are of a general nature and do not establish that evaluation of their asylum application by the Danish authorities was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 7.7 As regards the Board’s decision dated 3 March 2014 to refuse to reopen the asylum proceedings, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors had substantially changed their statements to the Danish Immigration Service and the Board about a risk of abuse by G’s wife’s family if they returned to Pakistan, but have not presented any new information substantiating that they would risk persecution or abuse relevant for the purpose of granting asylum upon return to Pakistan. The Committee observes that the authors disagree with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, but the information before the Committee does not show that those findings are manifestly unreasonable. 7.8 Consequently, the Committee considers that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their claims that the State party’s authorities failed to duly assess the risk they would face should they return to Pakistan. The Committee also considers that the information before it does not prima facie reveal the existence for the authors of a personal risk to their lives or of torture or ill-treatment, or of hindrance in the free exercise of their religion following their return to Pakistan. The Committee therefore finds the claims that the State party would violate its obligations under articles 6, 7 or 18 of the Covenant by removing the authors to Pakistan as not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that the present communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; (b) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional That the decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the authors. 13