CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014 in Pakistan was connected with G and his wife’s conflict with her family. As indicated by the State party, counsel further stated that, at least at present, there was a great risk that the authors would suffer abuse at the hands of family members of G’s wife if they returned to Pakistan. In the communication, the authors allege that they will be even more exposed than before if they return to Pakistan because G and his wife had obtained protection in Denmark as a result of their conflict with her family. The State party observes on this point that the Board, in its decision of 3 March 2014, found that the observation that the authors feared conflicts with G’s wife’s family because of G.’s marriage would not have led to a different assessment of the case. The Board considered it remarkable that the authors had not referred to the conflict with G’s wife’s family until after G and his wife had been granted residence under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act. In its assessment, the Board took into account that G had not lived with the family since 2011 and that there had been no contact between them in the subsequent period. The Board also took into account that, according to the information available, the authors had not at any time been contacted or sought out by G’s wife’s family, even after the marriage was contracted in April 2012, when the authors were still living in their home town. 4.11 The State party finds no reason to contest the assessment made by the Board. It cannot be considered as a fact that the incident on 25 May 2012 in which I.G. was accosted by schoolmates and the incident on 27 May 2012 in which the authors were assaulted by four young men on their way home from church were in any way connected to the conflicts resulting in the granting of asylum to G and his wife or that, if they returned, the authors would be exposed to a risk of abuse by the family of G’s wife because of the marriage. 4.12 The State party perceives the authors’ fear of G’s wife’s family to be based solely on speculation, since the authors were not in contact with members of that family either on the occasion of the marriage or before their departure in June 2012, and since the authors have not given any reasonable explanation of why they did not refer to their fear of abuse by that family should they return to Pakistan until after the Board had decided to grant asylum to G and his wife. The State party refers to the fact that the Committee has stated on several occasions that it is generally for the courts of the States parties to evaluate facts and evidence of a particular case, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The State party finds that the Board included all relevant information in its decisions and that the submission of the communication to the Committee has not brought to light any information substantiating that upon return to Pakistan the authors would risk persecution or abuse relevant for the purpose of granting asylum. 4.13 As regards the authors’ claim that, if they return to Pakistan, they will not be able to exercise their religion in public and that it will be necessary for them to hide their religion, the State party points to the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union,9 in which it was established that the competent authorities must ascertain, in the light of the personal circumstances of the person concerned, whether that person, as a result of exercising his or her freedom of religion in his or her country of origin, runs a genuine risk of being persecuted or subject to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment justifying asylum. Persons concerned will thus have a well-founded fear of persecution or treatment justifying asylum if it may reasonably be thought that, upon their return to their country of origin, they will engage in religious practices that will expose them to a real risk of persecution or treatment justifying asylum. Under such circumstances, the competent authorities cannot reasonably expect the person concerned to abstain from those religious practices. The State party observes on this point that even though the authors cannot be 9 8 Joined cases C-71/11 and C-99/11, Federal Republic of Germany v. Y (C-71/11) and Z (C-99/11), judgement of 5 September 2012.