CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012 freedom of religion was violated in China and that the State party should respect her right to freedom of religion by providing her with protection in Denmark. Further submissions from the author and the State party 6. On 21 October 2013, the author submits that the Refugee Appeals Board recently granted asylum to another asylum seeker from China. That person’s first asylum request in Denmark owing to his persecution in China on the grounds of affiliation with Falun Gong was rejected by the Danish authorities. He was deported to his country of origin in 2007, where he was again detained and tortured. Consequently, he returned to Denmark and again applied for asylum, which was granted to him on 10 June 2013. 7. On 17 December 2013, the State party submits that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 10 June 2013, referred to by the author, substantially differs from the present case. In that decision, the Board accepted as a fact that the applicant had taken part in demonstrations in China and that in connection with those demonstrations he had been imprisoned and exposed to outrages by the Chinese authorities. Against that background, the Board found that the applicant would be at risk of persecution, as “a suspect of active, oppositional activities against the Chinese Government” if returned to China. Thus, the State party maintains, as stated in its observations of 21 January 2013, that the present communication is manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party further maintains that no violations of the Covenant have occurred. 8. On 11 March 2016, the author’s counsel submitted that his client “managed to enter China” after having been deported from Denmark and now lives in hiding in Beijing with “some Christians who provide shelter”. She does not dare to go back to her home and describes her situation as very bad, since she cannot work officially or be part of normal public life. The author is still interested in the consideration of her communication by the Committee, since she is aware that the Danish authorities twice had to take back to Denmark the authors of other communications to the United Nations after they had been deported to Afghanistan. 9. On 12 April 2016, the State party referred to its observations of 21 January 2013 and stated that counsel’s further submission of 11 March 2016 did not give rise to any further comments from the State party. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claims 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. 10.2 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. 10.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that domestic remedies have been exhausted. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 10.4 As to the State party’s argument that the author’s claim under article 6 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation, the Committee notes that the information submitted to it does not provide sufficient grounds to 9