CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014 shown that the domestic courts’ findings were “manifestly unreasonable”. 7 In its decision in Z v. Australia, in which the domestic authorities deemed that an alleged religious conversion was not credible, the Committee deferred to the judgement of the domestic authorities, noting that the author had not identified any irregularity in the Australian authorities’ decision-making process or any risk factor that they had failed to take into account.8 In the light of such jurisprudence, the State party contests the author’s claim that it is required to meet a higher threshold of proof in order to demonstrate that it has complied with article 7 of the Covenant in a case involving alleged religious conversion of an asylum seeker. 4.18 The State party also considers that it has not violated article 2 (3) of the Covenant. Concerning the author’s claim that the domestic courts should have taken into consideration facts that arose after the final administrative decision was made in the author’s case, the State party considers that administrative remedies also qualify as effective remedies for the purposes of article 2 (3). The Immigration Appeals Board in Norway is an independent administrative body and is mandated with the task of considering new complaints and assessing requests for the reversal of original decisions with regard to claims, relying on new information. All of the Board’s decisions are based on an ex nunc assessment. A decision made by the Board on the basis of new information may form the basis of legal proceedings before domestic courts. Thus, the Board process clearly constituted an effective remedy for the author. The fact that this remedy, which in itself suffices to fulfil Norway’s obligations under article 2 (3) of the Covenant, is also subject to judicial review serves to strengthen the State party’s submission that there has been no violation of this provision. 4.19 With regard to the author’s argument that the Board’s letter dated 28 August 2014 constituted a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 2 (3) of the Covenant, the State party provides a full translation of the letter, which reads in part as follows: The Immigration Appeals Board wishes to be informed if new information has come to light subsequent to the Board’s decision and subsequent decisions not to reverse the original decision which may give reason for the Board to reassess its former decisions. It should be observed that it is important for the Board to be in possession of all available facts in relation to a possible deportation to Afghanistan. This request should be responded to within three weeks from today. The State party disagrees with the author’s assertion that this letter prevented him from seeking redress before the Committee by putting him in a position where he would be unable to exhaust domestic remedies. The State party considers that the purpose of the Board’s letter in such cases is to “enable the individual in question to furnish new evidence so as to ensure that the Board may assess the question of non-refoulement prior to deportation”. If the individual does submit new evidence, the Board will have to make a formal reassessment of the applicant’s complaint in light of that new evidence. The State party disagrees with the author’s assertion that the Board was aware of facts substantiating the author’s need for protection at the time it issued the letter. On the contrary, the Board was of the view at the time the letter was issued that the author was not in need of protection on the basis of facts to which it had access. The author has not subsequently presented any new facts that would lead to a change in this assessment. 4.20 Finally, concerning the author’s request for compensation, the State party considers that the Committee does not have a mandate to make statements regarding compensation. 7 8 12 The State party cites, inter alia, communication No. 2186/2012, X and X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.3. The State party cites communication No. 2049/2011, Z v. Australia, Views adopted 18 July 2014, para. 9.4.