CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016 were then channelled from abroad to the pro-democracy movement; (c) the author had been a member of unrecognized Christian Church; (d) the author had been arrested and tortured; (e) the author had left China legally following the arrest of Mr. Zhang; and (f) the Chinese authorities had contacted the author’s former spouse at her home in March and July 2013. 8.6 Nonetheless, the Board found that the author had failed to render it probable that his political and religious activities in China and Denmark had made him a high-profile individual to such extent that he had attracted the attention of the Chinese authorities in a manner that would justify asylum. The Board based its decision mainly on the fact that the author had left China lawfully only five months after the arrest of several leaders of the organization for which he had carried out activities, while considering unlikely that the Chinese authorities would wait eight months after the arrest of the leaders before coming to the author former spouse’s home, and disregarding that the author alleged that he had held a crucial role in the organization. In addition, the Board considered that the information on the author’s political and religious activities in Denmark had been submitted late — only in September 2015, immediately before the scheduled forced return of the author. 8.7 The Committee is of the view that many of the facts in the present case, including the information on the author’s personal engagement in the pro-democracy movement — the Liberty Democracy Party of China, the previous experience of torture, and the authorities’ interest in the author before and after his departure from China, were not contested by the State party’s authorities in the context of credibility assessment. However, the authorities have not adequately explained how they arrived at their conclusions that there was no personal risk for the author and his minor son in the event of their return. In that context, the Committee observes the failure of the State party to take due account of the past persecution faced by the author, the author’s father and sisters, and the inadequate consideration by the State party’s authorities of whether the author and his son might face a risk of violations of their rights in the given circumstances and of the impacts that the removal would have on the author’s autistic son. The Committee further notes the author’s request for a medical examination for signs of previous torture, 19 which was rejected by the Board since it only initiated an examination for signs of torture when the allegations to that effect appeared credible, and if it found that there was actual and real risk that the concerned asylum seeker would be subjected to torture again on return to his country of origin. The Committee considers that the reasons given for the rejection of the author’s request for medical examination by the Board do not appear reasonable, in particular when the State party accepted that the author had suffered torture in the past. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the facts as submitted disclose the existence of a real risk for the author and his son of treatment contrary to the requirements of article 7 of the Covenant as a consequence of their removal to China, which was not given sufficient weight by the State party’s authorities.20 Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that, by removing the author and his minor son to China, the State party would violate its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 8.8 In the light of its findings on article 7, the Committee will not further examine the author’s claim under article 6 of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that, by removing the author and his minor son to China, the State party would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy by proceeding to a review of the decision to forcibly remove him and his son to China, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant, and the Committee’s present Views. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author and his son while their request for asylum is being reconsidered. 19 20 See, e.g., Committee against Torture communication No. 634/2014, M.B., A.B., D.M.B. and D.B. v. Denmark (CAT/C/59/D/634/2014), paras. 9.6 and 9.8. See, e.g., communication No. 2370/2014, A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014), para. 8.8. 13