CCPR/C/130/D/2946/2017 risk of persecution or abuse in Afghanistan. His lack of knowledge of Afghan society and traditions and the absence of a family or other social network there do not independently justify granting asylum either. The author is a young unmarried man of working age without health problems and, given his statements on his grandparents, it cannot be considered a fact that he has no family in Afghanistan. He has never experienced any conflicts in Afghanistan and appears to be a low-profile individual. It is his own assumption that he will be pursued there because of his father’s past conflict. 4.10 As for his interest in Christianity, his tattoo and the necklace with a cross, the author did not raise these circumstances before his reopening request, even though he had been informed of the importance of disclosing all relevant information and should have disclosed this information prior to the Board hearing on 5 January 2017. Moreover, he was asked about his religious affiliation on several occasions during the procedure and replied that he was a Sunni Muslim, albeit not a firm believer. The State party considers his explanation of the late invocation, according to which he did not consider these circumstances relevant to his case, unconvincing. The State party considers it peculiar that he decided to get a tattoo of what he claims to be a cross only a few days before the Refugee Appeals Board’s hearing and did not inform his counsel or the Board, even though he states that this interest in Christianity and the tattooed symbol are very important to him. The State party concludes that his claimed interest in Christianity appears fabricated. The tattoo does not independently render it probable that he will be perceived as a Christian in Afghanistan; the author does not consider himself as such and, according to information on the country, even if it becomes known that someone has relied on conversion for his or her asylum claim, this does not mean that he or she will face risks, as Afghans have great understanding for compatriots who try everything to obtain residence in Europe.8 4.11 The State party observes that the author’s reference to the Committee’s Views in A.A.S. v. Denmark and his submission that the authorities did not grant sufficient weight to the cumulative effect of his individual circumstances cannot lead to a different assessment, as the Refugee Appeals Board made an overall assessment based on the author’s statements and information on the country. The State party maintains that the Board’s assessment does not lead to the conclusion that the author risks persecution or abuse justifying the granting of asylum. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 15 January 2019, the author provided comments on the State party’s observations and he reiterates his initial arguments (see paras. 2.1–2.3 above). 5.2 The author argues that, in the proceedings before the Danish Immigration Service, no counsel or independent third party is required to assist the asylum seeker. He reiterates that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be appealed before ordinary courts under Danish law despite the crucial matters being dealt with. He argues that the Board is not a court, because its meetings are not public, witnesses are allowed only in exceptional, unpredictable circumstances and one of the members is appointed by, and is usually an employee of, the ministry acting as superior administrative authority to the Danish Immigration Service, which makes the first decision, thus undermining the Board’s neutrality. 5.3 The author asserts that the facts of his case give rise to a risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant upon removal to Afghanistan. He argues, first, that the State party accepts his account of what has happened to him. Second, the State party did not grant him the benefit of the doubt regarding his father’s conflict and it is unknown whether the 8 The attention of the Committee was drawn to a report by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo, on the situation of Christians and converts in Afghanistan published on 4 September 2013 (in Norwegian). The State party also notes that it is stated in paragraph 36 of the 28 April 2004 UNHCR guidelines on international protection concerning religion-based refugee claims under article 1A(2) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and/or its 1967 Protocol (document HCR/GIP/04/06) that “so-called ‘self-serving’ activities do not create a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in the claimant’s country of origin, if the opportunistic nature of such activities will be apparent to all, including the authorities there, and serious adverse consequences would not result if the person were returned”. 5