CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 original asylum proceedings, the author had not mentioned to the police, the Danish Immigration Service, his legal counsel or the Board his interest in Christianity, which had arisen during his stay in Greece prior to his entry into Denmark, according to the request to reopen the case. It was observed in that respect that, according to the memorandum of 5 December 2013, the author had started coming to the Kronborgvejens Church Centre on 6 January 2013. In its assessment of the information on the author’s conversion, the Board also took into account, as appears from the reasoning of its decision of 6 February 2013, that the author had given elaborate and inconsistent statements concerning his grounds for seeking asylum and he had also provided new information on his nationality in his request to reopen the case. Against that background, the Board found that the author would not be at risk of persecution justifying asylum in the event of his removal to Afghanistan. 2.16 On an unspecified date, the author submitted a new request to the Board to reopen his asylum proceeding. He had appended a memorandum prepared by a prison minister, which stated that the author had been threatened at the Ellebæk Institution for detained asylum seekers and referred to a notice of 8 November 2013 which had apparently been posted at the website www.asylret.dk. The author had stated in this respect that he feared being contacted or assaulted by one or more of the Muslim Afghans forcibly returned after their stay at the Ellebæk Institution, because it was contrary to sharia law to leave Islam. In that respect, the author feared both private individuals from whom the authorities would not protect him and persecution by the authorities because he had violated sharia law. 2.17 On 14 March 2014, the author was notified that his request to reopen the asylum proceedings had been refused. The Refugee Appeals Board stated, inter alia, that for the reasons explained in its decision of 6 February 2014, it could still not accept as a fact that the author’s conversion from Islam to Christianity was genuine. Moreover, the Board could not accept as a fact the information provided by the author that he had allegedly been threatened by other asylum seekers who had already been or, like the author, were about to be returned from Denmark, because the information seemed fabricated for the occasion. The Board emphasized in particular that the information had been provided immediately before a scheduled deportation after the Board had notified the author on 6 February 2014 of its refusal to reopen the case. Accordingly, and since the observations regarding the Board’s previous decisions in cases involving asylum seekers who had converted from Islam to Christianity could not lead to a different outcome, the Board found that the author had not substantiated his claim that he would risk persecution justifying asylum under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act or risk the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under section 7 (2) if he was deported to Afghanistan. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his deportation from Denmark to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of his rights under articles 6, 7, 14, 18 and 26 of the Covenant. In that connection, the author submits, inter alia, that he did not mention anything about his Christian faith during the original asylum proceedings because he was not a Christian at that time. His asylum proceedings should therefore have been reopened by the Refugee Appeals Board, because new and relevant information had been produced in the form of a certificate of baptism showing that he had converted to Christianity and a document proving that he was an Iranian national. 3.2 In support of his submission, the author refers to the Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan, published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on 6 August 2013, according to which individuals with, inter alia, the following profiles may be in need of international protection: individuals associated with, or perceived as supportive of, the Government of Afghanistan and the international community, including the international military forces; men and boys of fighting age; individuals perceived as contravening the Taliban’s interpretation of Islamic principles, norms and values; and members of (minority) ethnic groups. The author explains that owing to his travel to Europe, if he were deported to Afghanistan he would certainly be perceived as having contravened Islamic rules and as being supportive of the Government and/or the international community. Moreover, the author has converted to Christianity. He further claims that, given his age, he risks being 5