Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/3188/2018 the Convention owing to the clear procedural irregularity in failing to fully assess the cumulative risk he faces on return to Iran. 5.4 The author further asserts that the State party authorities refused to consider any of the risk factors and their implications by solely relying on the negative credibility finding and using this as a basis to dismiss all of the author’s claims, including those objective facts and sur place activities, which place him at risk, even if his account of events prior to fleeing Iran is not believed. The author states that the State Party authorities failed to consider his clear, detailed and consistent explanation as to the genesis of his beliefs and consequent conversion, his extramarital relationship and in any case failed to consider facts he presented, which were not assessed and were not challenged including his illegal departure from Iran, his failure to submit for, and conscientious objection to, military service, his baptism in Denmark, his proselytizing to other asylum seekers, both in person and online, which Iranian authorities will have seen and which the interviewer reviewed and didn’t challenge, his continued commitment to Christianity and ongoing religious education and attendance at church, which his witness could have further attested to and been questioned on, his obviously Christian themed tattoos, which would be discoverable upon a standard search upon arrival, a certainty were he to arrive on a laissez passer, indicating his illegal departure and his attendance at a demonstration against the regime, which was photographed and which the interviewer was aware of and did not question him to attain further details, all of which, taken together, place him at real risk of treatment contrary to the Covenant. The State Party failed to challenge these and yet did not consider the sequence of events, which would be triggered by his arrival in Iran. Upon discovering his tattoos, the authorities could not dismiss his conversion as for the purposes of an asylum claim and would force him to recant. If he later was seen to practice his religion, his faith requiring him to proselytize, he would have been seen to have undermined the recantation and would be persecuted and prosecuted. The author states that there are known to be court facilities at airports in Iran to deal expeditiously with such cases. 29 5.5 The author, therefore, claims that the failure by the State party to assess these factors cumulatively, as demonstrated by the lack of reasoning in the R.A.B.’s decision and repeated in the State party’s rehearsal of the same in its observations, again without any specific reference to the risk presented by the facts, represents a manifest procedural error meaning that the risk he faces was not duly considered, amounting to a denial of justice and a violation of his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being and has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee observes that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol Accordingly, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 29 The December 2013 General Official Report of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, states: “A special court located in Tehran’s Mehrabad Airport deals with [cases of people leaving the country without a valid passport or similar travel document] … The court assesses the background of the individual, the date of their departure from the country, the reason for their illegal departure, their connection with any organizations or groups, and any other circumstances. This procedure also applies to people who are deported back to Iran and who are not in possession of a passport containing an exit visa. DFAT understands that illegal departure is often prosecuted in conjunction with other unrelated offence.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/852 768/cpin-iran-illegal-exit_-_ext.pdf, accessed 21 January 2021.. 9