Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2510/2014 4.13 The State party also draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that public debate in Denmark, in general, and among asylum seekers, in particular, has focused considerably on the significance of conversion, typically from Islam to Christianity, to the outcome of an asylum case. It is therefore common knowledge among asylum seekers and other parties within the field of asylum that information on conversion is a ground for asylum. For this reason as well, it cannot be considered as a fact that the author was not aware of the significance of this information to the outcome of his asylum proceedings when he requested re-examination on 3 December 2014. 4.14 The State party finds that the author’s tattoos cannot independently lead to the conclusion that the author risks persecution or abuse in case of his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Examination of the photos of the author’s tattoos reveals that none of them has distinct and clearly defined Christian symbols and that all are placed on spots on the body that are normally covered. Moreover, the author has not mentioned any problems that he has experienced himself due to his tattoos. Only at a fairly advanced stage of his asylum proceedings did he refer to his tattoos as relevant grounds for asylum. 4.15 As to the author’s allegations in respect of his critical view against the Iranian regime, the State party notes that he has never relied upon such a claim during the asylum proceedings. Nor did the author rely on political activities as his ground for asylum in his requests for the reopening of 3 December 2014 and 20 April 2015. 4.16 As to the author’s claim that there is a significant risk that the Iranian authorities will investigate his past as a member of Basij if he enters the Islamic Republic of Iran without a passport and is subjected to interrogation in that connection, the State party reiterates that the Danish authorities did not find the author being at risk of persecution or abuse in case of return. For the State party, the author is a very low-profile individual in the eyes of the Iranian authorities. 4.17 In conclusion, when rendering its decision, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board took into account all relevant information. The present communication to the Committee has not brought to light any new information substantiating that the author will risk persecution or asylumrelevant abuse upon his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. During domestic proceedings, the author benefited from a decision to reopen the asylum proceedings and consider the author’s case at an oral hearing on 1 July 2015 before a new panel whose members differed from those of the panel who made the initial decision. On that occasion, the author was allowed to make a new statement on his grounds for asylum, but the new panel also found them to be non-credible. The author has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. He is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. However, the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of facts made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances in the author’s case. There is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessments made by the Refugee Appeals Board, according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be at a risk of being subjected to persecution or asylum-relevant abuse if he is returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Against this background, the return of the author to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 4.18 On 4 January 2019, the State party submitted a copy of the decision of 12 November 2018 of the Refugee Appeals Board, without further comments. 9