CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014 4.5 Furthermore, the Refugee Appeals Board could not accept as fact that the author had converted from Islam to Christianity (see paragraph 2.11 above). The State party points out that the author was baptized on 16 June 2013. Nevertheless, he only informed the migration authorities of his conversion when he faced imminent deportation in May 2014, despite the fact that he had received documentation and confirmation of his church attendance and baptism on 7 July 2013. 4.6 The author’s submission about his attendance at Iranian church services when he was an asylum seeker in the Netherlands, which were allegedly recorded and uploaded to YouTube, were not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the author provided no information indicating that he had been particularly exposed as a convert through the recordings. 4.7 The author’s allegations that he had been harassed by Afghan Muslim inmates in the Ellebaek asylum centre and that they would persecute him in Afghanistan cannot lead to a revised assessment of the case, especially since his conversion to Christianity is not considered genuine. Moreover, the allegations are not supported by any evidence. The State party notes that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), so-called “self-serving” activities do not create a well-founded fear of persecution in the claimant’s country of origin if the opportunistic nature of such activities would be apparent to all, including the authorities there. Consequently, serious adverse consequences would not result if the person were returned. 9 4.8 In the light of the above, on 2 June 2014, when making its assessment, the Refugee Appeals Board found that it could not be accepted as a fact that the author had made a genuine conversion from Islam to Christianity and that therefore the author had failed to substantiate that he would face a risk of persecution if deported to Afghanistan. Accordingly, the Board also found no basis for reopening the proceedings for reconsideration of the case. 4.9 The State party further maintains that the fact that the author is a young man of Qizilbash ethnicity from Taloqan cannot in itself justify his eligibility for international protection. It does not appear from the 2013 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan that persons of Qizilbash ethnicity are a particularly persecuted group or otherwise at a special risk of persecution because of their ethnicity. During the asylum procedure, the author had stated that he had never been involved in politics and that neither he nor his family had ever had problems with the authorities. Thus, the author would not risk any circumstances contrary to articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant upon return to Afghanistan. 4.10 Article 13 of the Covenant does not confer a right to a court hearing. In its decision of 2 June 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board, acting through the judge who chaired the specific board that had made the original decision in the author’s case, considered all the information submitted by the author in his request to have his asylum procedure reopened, including information related to his reported conversion to Christianity. Article 13 has therefore not been violated in the present case. 4.11 The author has been treated no differently than any other person applying for asylum in terms of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The refusal to reopen the asylum proceedings does not in itself constitute discrimination. The author’s request to have his case reopened was considered by the competent authority, and the refusal to reopen the case was well-founded and in accordance with the case law of the Board. Therefore, the author’s claims under article 26 of the Covenant are not substantiated. 9 Determination Process”, available from www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/3FD55632-770B-48B6935C-827E83C18AD8/0/FFMrapportenAFGHANISTAN2012Final.pdf. The State party refers to the UNHCR document dated 28 April 2004, entitled “Guidelines on International Protection: religion-based refugee claims under article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Convention and Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”, paras. 34 and 36. Available from www.unhcr.org/afr/40d8427a4.pdf. 5