CCPR/C/119/D/2253/2013 had been cut out. Counsel indicates that the author fears that given that the film director supports the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, he may have provided a full version of the film to the Iranian authorities. Counsel also reiterates that the Refugee Appeals Board has considered involvement in this film as a risk factor for other asylum seekers who have participated in it and has granted refugee status to at least two of them. 25 Furthermore, counsel indicates that the fact that the author has not been subjected to torture or ill-treatment since his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran does not mean that he will not be subjected to it in the future. 7.3 Counsel also informs the Committee that she has not been able to communicate with the author since February 2014. Before losing contact, the author had informed her that he had been questioned by the Iranian authorities twice, that his passport was still confiscated and that he was not allowed to leave the Kermanshah area. Counsel claims that this could mean that the author is still under investigation by the Iranian authorities and, therefore, considers that there is still a risk that they will find out about the above-mentioned film interview. Counsel further indicates that as of February 2014, the author was still hiding in his grandparent’s house in Pabli village, but she does not know if he is still there, if he has left the country or if he has been arrested. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 25 10 The author provided the Committee with another decision of the Refugee Appeals Board, dated 17 March 2014, and a partial unofficial translation of the decision. In that case, the asylum seeker claimed that he feared persecution if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his activities supporting the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan since 2006. In addition, he had brought food to the peshmerga in the mountains four times and had been imprisoned for six days in 2008. The asylum seeker had left the Islamic Republic of Iran after the authorities had gone to his family’s tent and arrested his uncle. After the asylum seeker had left, the authorities had gone to look for him at least once. The asylum seeker also alleged that he feared persecution in the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his political activities in Denmark, where he had continued to support the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan by participating in demonstrations and in the hunger strike held in May 2012. The asylum seeker indicated that a photograph of him, taken while he was on the hunger strike, had been published in Iranian media. Moreover, he claimed that he had given an interview to a film director in which he had criticized the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Afterwards, he learned that the film had been shown in the Islamic Republic of Iran and that the sections in which the persons interviewed criticized the regime had been cut from the film. The asylum seeker claimed before the Refugee Appeals Board that he feared that the film director, who appeared to be in favour of the Government, had provided the Iranian secret service with a full version of the film. The asylum seeker further claimed that he also feared persecution because he had become Christian while in Denmark. The Board found the applicant’s explanation about the creation and distribution of the film plausible and therefore considered that it could not rule out the possibility that the applicant was known to the Iranian authorities and that they were aware of his views against the Government. In addition, the Board considered that the author had explained in a coherent way his other political activities in Denmark, and found credible that the author had anti-Government pictures on his Facebook profile. The Board also considered that the author had coherently explained the circumstances of his conversion to Christianity. After conducting an overall assessment of the author’s claims, the Board had decided to grant him refugee status.