CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014 6.3 On 15 September 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld its refusal to reopen the author’s asylum request since it had found by majority that his conversion was not genuine. The Board noted, inter alia, that the author had acquired knowledge of Christianity that was not insignificant, but that he had only started to become better acquainted with Christianity in March 2013, after his claim for asylum had been refused; that his familiarity with Christianity had been limited when he was baptized in June 2013; and that his explanations as to the motives for converting had been evasive and formulated in general terms. In that connection, the Board considered that, in view of the significance of Islam in Afghan society, if his conversion had been genuine, it seemed unlikely that the author would have such general and superficial explanation about the reasons that had motivated him to convert. The Board also found it improbably that, merely by virtue of his appearance among many others in a video from an Iranian church in the Netherlands uploaded to YouTube, or because other Afghan asylum seekers in Denmark had learned of his conversion, that the author would risk persecution or serious abuse in case of his return to Afghanistan, and that his statement that a friend on Facebook in Afghanistan had been informed of the conversion could not lead to a different conclusion. From the author 7. On 23 September 2016, the author submitted that he had unsuccessfully requested that his case be remitted to the Danish Immigration Service, since his conversion to Christianity was a new asylum motive, which had not been examined at first instance. The Refugee Appeals Board had also rejected without providing any explanation his request to present a witness at the hearing. Likewise, it had rejected his request that the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs conduct an investigation to determine if the documents provided in support of his initial asylum procedure were genuine. From the State party 8.1 On 24 October 2016, the State party referred to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 15 September 2016 and reiterated its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. 8.2 With regard to the author’s claims under article 13, the State party maintains that, in cases decided by the Danish Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board in which the asylum seeker claims that essential new information has come to light, the Board will make an assessment of whether this new information may result in a different decision. The Board may remit the case to the Service for re-examination. In the case at hand, the panel examining the author’s case at the Board hearing on 15 September 2016 had been different from the one that had considered the initial asylum request. The fact that the Board had not made an explicit reference in its decision of 15 September 2016 to its finding that the case should not be remitted to the Danish Immigration Service for re-examination at first instance could not be taken to mean that the Board had failed to consider a potential remission of the case. 8.3 The author had asked for permission to present a missionary, T.H., whom the author had met in a church context, as a witness at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board. The Board considered that the witness would only give evidence to substantiate the asylum seeker’s general credibility as to whether his conversion was genuine or not. For that reason, and considering the fact that the author had already produced extensive testimonies from pastors and other persons whom he had met in a church context, the Board found that it had not been relevant to call the missionary. Moreover, in its decision of 15 September 2016, the Board had considered as a fact some of the author’s statements concerning his participation in the church and his knowledge about Christianity (see paragraph 6.3 above). The refusal by the Board to accept the witness had been made in accordance with the second sentence of section 54 (1) of the Aliens Act and the Board’s case law. 8.4 Concerning the author’s request to assess the authenticity of the documents produced by him concerning his initial asylum claim, the State party notes that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board had been based on overall assessment of, inter alia, the nature and contents of the documents in conjunction with the prospect of whether such verification could lead to a different assessment of the evidence, the timing and 7