CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 conversion and had told only a few friends. The author’s conversion is rumoured among Muslims and he and his friend3 had experienced religious harassment at the asylum centre and had been called infidels by other asylum seekers. 2.11 A certificate of baptism issued by the Kronborgvejens Church Centre was enclosed with the request to reopen the author’s asylum proceedings, as well as a document allegedly proving that the author was an Iranian national. The Danish Refugee Council further submitted that, in its opinion, the author met the conditions for being granted a residence permit under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act. In that respect, the Council referred to the previous decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board in cases concerning Christian converts from Afghanistan, stating that, although it had not yet been established at that time whether the Afghan or Iranian authorities had learned about the author’s conversion, it could not be ruled out that there was a risk that they would learn about the author’s conversion if he was deported to Afghanistan or the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to the Council, it would be difficult for the author, having converted to Christianity, to conceal his new affiliation if he was removed to either country. Moreover, because he would be returning from a European country, his behaviour would attract more attention among the local population, so that even the smallest non-compliance with religions norms and principles would leave the author in a particularly vulnerable situation. The Council additionally submitted that, according to previous decisions made by the Board in cases involving Christian converts, the author could not be required to hide his religious beliefs to avoid problems in his country of origin. 2.12 The Refugee Appeals Board had a translation made of the document enclosed with the Council’s letter of 11 December 2013. It appeared from the translation that it was an identity certificate issued by the National Population Register of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning E.H., born on 30 June 1996 in Tehran. The parents were Y. and K., both Afghan nationals. It also appeared that this birth certificate had allegedly been issued on 9 July 1996. The Board requested the Council by email of 9 January 2014 to submit any comments on the translation of the document. By email of 16 January 2014, the Council stated that the author had mentioned that H., the surname written in the document, was the family name of his mother’s new husband, but that he had been registered in Denmark with the name of K., which was his father’s surname. 2.13 By email of 30 January 2014, the Danish Refugee Council forwarded additional material to the Refugee Appeals Board in the form of a memorandum, dated 5 December 2013, written by a minister of the Kronborgvejens Church Centre, which stated that the author had regularly attended church services and that he had been coming to this church since 6 January 2013. 2.14 On 6 February 2014, the author was notified that the request to reopen the asylum proceedings had been refused. The Refugee Appeals Board referred to section 40 (1) of the Aliens Act, pursuant to which an asylum seeker must provide the information necessary to assess whether a residence permit could be granted pursuant to the Act. Hence, an alien who applied for a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens Act must substantiate his identity and the grounds for asylum invoked by the alien. The Board also observed that the author had not provided any explanation as to why he now stated that he was an Iranian national, whereas he had previously stated during the asylum proceedings that he was an Afghan national. As regards the documents produced by the author in connection with the request to reopen the case, the Board observed that in view of their form and contents and the time of their production they seemed fabricated for the occasion and the Board could therefore not attach any evidential weight to those documents. It also observed that the documents did not appear to provide any information substantiating the claim that the person referred to in the documents was an Iranian national. Moreover, the relevant person was called E.H. not E.K. On those grounds, the Board still considered it a fact that the author was an Afghan national. 2.15 The Refugee Appeals Board also found that, in the event of his removal to Afghanistan, the author would not be at any risk of persecution falling within section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act owing to his conversion, because the Board could not accept as a fact that the author’s conversion was genuine. The Board observed in that respect that, during the 3 4 The name of the friend is available on file.