CCPR/C/117/D/2291/2013 they are Ahmadi Muslims. The rights of Ahmadis are systematically violated in Pakistan. 3 The authors fear that, due to their faith, the authorities in Pakistan would not protect them from persecution. The authors dispute the conclusion of the Refugee Appeals Board that generally difficult conditions for Ahmadis cannot serve as a ground for asylum. The Board acknowledged that Ahmadis in Pakistan are subjected to threats, harassment and significant limitations on the exercise of their faith. The European Court of Justice has noted that, under the Penal Code in Pakistan, the Ahmadi Muslim religion is punishable by three years of imprisonment and proselytizing the religion is punishable by death.4 3.2 The authors’ removal to Pakistan would also constitute a violation of article 18 of the Covenant, because they would be unable to display their religion in public without fear of persecution. 3.3 Furthermore, the State party has violated the authors’ rights under article 14 of the Covenant by failing to provide a procedural mechanism to appeal negative decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board. Certain other countries allow appeals of negative asylum decisions before judicial courts and even the European Court of Justice. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 23 April 2014, the State party indicates that the authors entered Denmark on 16 November 2012 using valid national passports with one-month Schengen visas issued at the Danish Embassy in Islamabad. On 1 December 2012, they applied for asylum. In their application, they stated that they had obtained the visas because they had wished to visit their son. During his interview with the Danish Immigration Service, the male author stated that it was only during his stay in Denmark that he had become aware that the female author intended to apply for asylum there and that, after discussing the situation in Pakistan with their son, they had agreed on that course of action. The female author also stated that they did not apply for asylum immediately because she had not informed the male author of her intention to do so until after their arrival in Denmark. When asked if it was correct that the male author had no intention of applying for asylum in Denmark when they left Pakistan, the female author confirmed that and stated that she had needed time to persuade the male author to agree to it. 4.2 Concerning the authors’ reasons for leaving Pakistan, on his asylum application, the male author claimed that imams were turning people against Ahmadis. He stated that he had encountered problems with the authorities and unspecified private individuals in Pakistan and had been subjected to harassment. On her asylum application, the female author stated that mullahs in Pakistan had damned the authors in mosques, spoken ill of them, instructed the authors’ employees to quit their jobs and told others not to patronize the authors’ business. Both authors claimed on their applications that they had received threats that they would be killed if they did not leave the country or renounce their religion. During their interviews with the Danish Immigration Service, the male author stated that the authors had received anonymous, threatening letters every 10 to 15 days, beginning approximately four to six months before their departure. The female author stated that the first letter had arrived in June 2012 (i.e., about four to five months before their departure) and that subsequent letters had arrived thereafter about once or twice a month. She further stated that the letters had been placed in their garage at night, the authors had also received 3 4 The authors refer generally to the United States of America, Department of State, “International religious freedom report”. The authors cite the European Court of Justice, cases C-71/11 and C-99/11 (X and Y v. Germany), judgment of 5 September 2012 concerning the application of EU Directive 2004/83/EF; and sections 298 and 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code. 3