CCPR/C/125/D/2345/2014 given non-committal, evasive and vague replies even to simple and uncomplicated questions. The Board further observed that the author had also failed to draw attention to his interest in Christianity in his reopening requests received by the Board on 13 August 2012 and 8 August 2013. 2.16 Upon an overall assessment, the Board found that it had not been substantiated that the author would risk persecution justifying asylum under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act or risk the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under section 7 (2) if he was returned to Afghanistan. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his deportation from Denmark to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of his rights under articles 6, 7, 14, 18 and 26 of the Covenant. In that connection, the author submits, inter alia, that he did not mention anything about his Christian faith during the original asylum proceedings because he was not a Christian at that time, that as proof of his conversion to Christianity he has produced a certificate of baptism, that the Board should make an assessment of the credibility of his conversion, and that the argument about his lack of credibility during the original asylum proceedings cannot be applied to the grounds of conversion. 3.2 In support of his submission, the author refers to the Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on 6 August 2013, according to which individuals with, inter alia, the following profiles may be in need of international protection: individuals associated with, or perceived as supportive of the Government of Afghanistan and the international community, including the international military forces; men and boys of fighting age; individuals perceived as contravening the Taliban’s interpretation of Islamic principles, norms and values; and members of (minority) ethnic groups. The author explains that, owing to his travel to Europe, if he were returned to Afghanistan, he would certainly be perceived as having contravened Islamic rules and as being supportive of the Government and/or the international community. Moreover, the author has converted to Christianity. He further claims that, given his age, he risks being forced to fight for either the Government or the Taliban, and that he also risks being sexually abused.8 The author adds that he cannot seek protection from his family, and that he belongs to an ethnic minority group, the Hazara, from Mazar-e-Sharif. 3.3 The author also claims that, pursuant to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines and contrary to the assessment made by the Board in its decisions of 16 January 2012 and 6 February 2014, he needs international protection as a young ethnic Hazara from Mazar-eSharif. Furthermore, the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines make it clear that numerous factors should be taken into account in the evaluation of the availability of internal flight or relocation alternatives in Afghanistan. In that connection, the author submits that the failure of the Board to take those factors into consideration in taking its decisions of 16 January 2012 and 6 February 2014 and in maintaining the initial order, obliging the author to leave Denmark, constitutes a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 3.4 The author also submits that his rights under article 14 of the Covenant have been violated, since a decision on his asylum application taken by the Board under the administrative procedure could not be appealed to a judicial body (CERD/C/DEN/CO/17, para. 13). For him, this also raises the question of discrimination under article 26 of the Covenant, since under the State party’s law, decisions of a great number of administrative boards, which have the same composition as the Refugee Appeals Board, can be appealed before the ordinary courts. The author also argues that his new sur place asylum grounds, that is, his conversion to Christianity while in Denmark, was only examined and dismissed by a person who was part of the Board’s secretariat, with the approval of the Board’s Chair. Therefore, it was not the Board as such that made the decision to reject the request of the Danish Refugee Council to reopen the author’s asylum proceedings. 8 The author does not provide further details on this matter. 5