CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014 required to hide or keep secret their religious beliefs in order to avoid problems in their country of origin as a consequence of their religious beliefs, it still remains crucial for the granting of asylum to the authors that they have a well-founded fear of persecution by authorities or private individuals in Pakistan as a consequence of their religious beliefs. The Board found that this was not the case. 4.14 In this connection, the State party refers to the fact that, according to the Board’s background information, including the Country of Origin Information published by the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, an estimated 34 million Christians live in Pakistan. It also appears from the background information that discrimination and abuse are committed against the Christian community in Pakistan. 10 4.15 Nevertheless, the background information available to the Board suggests that the authorities in Pakistan do not initiate court actions against persons for the sole reason that they are Christians. Blasphemy cases are sometimes initiated by local religious communities or persons supported by such communities who are in conflict with Christians at the local level, although the real motive for such cases is not always religious but the desire for private gain, achieved for example by forcing a person to leave a property. According to the applicable provisions on blasphemy under Pakistani law, the first investigation report does not automatically result in an indictment and imprisonment. 11 4.16 In that connection, the State party refers to the fact that, in its decision of 3 March 2014, the Board expressly considered the importance of the general situation for Christians in Pakistan and in that connection Board found that the fact that the authors were Christians did not in itself mean that they met the conditions for being granted asylum in Denmark. The State party relies on the Board’s decisions of 13 June 2013 and 3 March 2014 and therefore submits that there are no grounds for establishing that the return of the authors to Pakistan will amount to a breach of article 18 of the Covenant. 4.17 The State party submits that the authors have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of their communication under articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant,12 as the communication is not sufficiently substantiated. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the Government submits that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the authors will be in danger of being deprived of their lives or subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Pakistan. The return of the authors to Pakistan will therefore not amount to a violation of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant. The State party considers that the authors have not substantiated a well-founded fear of persecution by authorities or private individuals in Pakistan as a consequence of their religious beliefs and therefore submits that the authors have failed to establish that they have been deprived of their rights under article 18 of the Covenant. 10 11 12 See United Kingdom Home Office ,Country of Origin Information of 9 August 2013, sect. 19.180, and Landinfo – Country of Origin Information Centre (Norway), “Thematic memorandum on Pakistan: situation for Christians” (in Norwegian), 20 June 2013. The State party refers in this connection to the Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan of 14 May 2012 issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), particularly pp. 25 et seq. The Guidelines indicate that members of the Christian minority in Pakistan are subject to recurrent discrimination and harassment, as well as acts of religiously motivated violence, at the hands of militant groups and fundamentalist elements. Criminal provisions, particularly the blasphemy laws, are reportedly used by militant organizations and members of some Muslim communities to intimidate and harass Christians, as well as to exact revenge or settle personal or business disputes. See rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 9