CEDAW/C/55/D/40/2012 the asylum authorities that they were ethnic Anglo-Indians of Christian faith from Rawalpindi, Pakistan. They were not members of any political or religious associations or organizations or otherwise politically active. They affirmed that they feared persecution by one individual who had persecuted them in the past. In substantiation, they claimed that the author had been harassed for a number of years by the individual in question, who wanted to start a relationship with her. They further claimed that this individual belonged to a high-ranking family and that his brother was a high-ranking police official who could find them anywhere in Pakistan. They claimed that, because of this, they would be unable to enjoy the protection of the Pakistani authorities. They also referred to persecution against Christians in Pakistan. 4.2 On 27 November 2009, the Immigration Service rejected the author’s and her family’s application for asylum. The author and her family appealed to the Refugee Appeals Board. On 9 March 2012, the Board upheld the Service’s decision. The Board found that the author and her family had been harassed and subjected to outrages by an individual, his brother and the local police for a number of years. It did not, however, consider that the author’s brother had been killed by the police. The Board concluded, inter alia, that it must be considered reasonable for the author and her family to take up residence elsewhere in Pakistan, in a place where their persecutor would be unable to harass them. Moreover, the Board found that it had not been established that the author and her family had been subjected to general harassment as Christians in Pakistan to such an extent as to be considered to amount to persecution within the meaning of section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act and that the conditions for Christians in Pakistan were not such as to make it impossible for the author and her family to change their place of residence in the country. The Board concluded that the author and her family did not satisfy the conditions for residence under section 7 of the Aliens Act and rejected their asylum application. 4.3 The State party provides details concerning the prerogatives and composition of the Refugee Appeals Board and the legal basis for its decisions. 2 It further points out that, pursuant to section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien falls within the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) (convention status). Pursuant to section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act (the wording of which is similar to that of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights)), a residence permit will further be issued to an alien if the alien will be at risk of the death penalty or of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the event __________________ 2 13-42833 The State party indicates that the Refugee Appeals Board is an independent, quasi-judicial body and that any appeal to it suspends the enforcement of the decision under appeal. The Board is considered a court within the meaning of article 39 of Council of the European Union Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in European Union member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, which established the right of asylum seekers to have a decision in their case reviewed by a court or tribunal. Pursuant to section 56 (8) of the Aliens Act, decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are final, i.e. there can be no appeal against the Board’s decisions. Aliens may, however, by virtue of the Constitution, bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, which have the authority to adjudicate any matter concerning the limits to the competence of a public authority. As established by the Supreme Court, the ordinary courts’ review of decisions of the Board is limited to a review of legal issues, including shortcomings in the basis of the decision and the unlawful exercise of discretion. The Board’s assessment of evidence is not subject to review. 5/13