CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all 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. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant that his forcible removal to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of being killed or subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, because of his conversion from Islam to Christianity. In that context, the Committee notes that the other grounds for seeking asylum presented by the author to the State party’s authorities at different stages of the asylum proceedings are not part of the present communication to the Committee (see para. 5.2 above). 7.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.16 The Committee observes that in its decision of 6 February 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board could not accept as a fact that the author’s conversion to Christianity was genuine, despite the existence of a certificate of baptism and a memorandum written by a minister of the Kronborgvejens Church Centre. In its assessment of the information on the author’s conversion, the Board had also taken into account, as appears from the reasoning of its decisions of 6 February 2013 and 6 February 2014, that the author had given elaborate and inconsistent statements on his grounds for seeking asylum and had also provided new information on his nationality in the request to reopen his asylum proceedings submitted on his behalf by the Danish Refugee Council, which was rejected by the Board as fabricated for the occasion. 7.6 The Committee also notes that, although the author generally contests the assessment and findings of the Danish authorities as to the risk of harm he faces in Afghanistan owing to his conversion to Christianity, he has not presented any evidence to sufficiently substantiate his claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee observes in particular that the author has never been to Afghanistan and has therefore never personally experienced any problems with the Afghan authorities, the Taliban or others in Afghanistan. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements available when evaluating the risk of irreparable harm faced by the author if he was removed to Afghanistan and that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process. The Committee also considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities and with their decision not to reopen his case, he has not shown that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 13 of the Covenant that he was unable to appeal the negative decisions of the Board to a judicial body. In that regard, the 16 See Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015), para. 7.3, and Rezaifar v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014), para. 8.3. 13