CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014 been subjected to discrimination. This part of the communication should thus be declared inadmissible. 4.10 On the merits, the State party submits that, when making its decision on 6 February 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board took into account that the author had given inconsistent and elaborate statements about his main grounds for seeking asylum, which therefore appeared to have been fabricated for the occasion in its entirety. The Board therefore could not accept the author’s statements as facts. In particular, in the course of the initial asylum proceedings, the author elaborated considerably on the information given for his otherwise very simple grounds for seeking asylum (see paras. 2.1, 2.3–2.5 and 2.8–2.9 above). The author also said when interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service that he feared being imprisoned in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but that he did not fear being removed to Afghanistan and that the conflict in the Islamic Republic of Iran related to the killing of his colleague was the reason why he had applied for asylum in Denmark. Furthermore, the author had only provided socioeconomic information that did not support his claim for asylum during the initial asylum proceedings, including that his family was poor in the Islamic Republic of Iran and that he wanted a better life. 4.11 As to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 6 February 2014 not to open the author’s asylum proceedings on the grounds of his conversion to Christianity, the State party recalls that pursuant to section 40 of the Aliens Act, asylum seekers must substantiate their grounds for seeking asylum (para. 2.14 above). Accordingly, the author should have disclosed his interest in Christianity and that he had started going to church one month before the hearing before the Board on 6 February 2013, at which the author gave oral evidence, aided by an interpreter and counsel. Furthermore, the author was asked about his religious affiliation several times in connection with the examination of his asylum application in Denmark and he stated that he was a Muslim. He was also told several times that it was important that he disclosed all matters that might be relevant for the determination of his asylum application. 4.12 Finally, the State party submits that it must be assumed to be common knowledge among Danish immigration lawyers, and asylum seekers in particular, that conversion from Islam to Christianity is a valid and relevant justification for seeking asylum. Against this background, the State party finds that it is not credible that the author has genuinely converted to Christianity. It refers moreover to the general lack of credibility as regards the other grounds cited by the author for claiming asylum. 4.13 The State party observes in addition that the author only disclosed to the Refugee Appeals Board that he had converted to Christianity in mid-December 2013 – at a point in time when his forced return was about to be effected. He made this choice despite the fact that religion played a significant role in his life according to his own information and despite the fact that he had been offered the opportunity to speak about his interest in Christianity and his dissociation with Islam at the oral hearing of the Board on 6 February 2013, but he chose not to do so. 4.14 As to the identity certificate issued by the National Population Register of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Board observed that the author had stated during the entire asylum proceedings that he was an Afghan national and born to Afghan parents. For this reason and because it was produced at a late stage, no evidential weight could be attached to the identity certificate. For those reasons, the Board assessed that no findings of fact could be based on the identity certificate. In the State party’s view, the author did not provide the Board with such information or sufficient grounds to substantiate his claim that he risked violation of his rights under article 6 or 7 of the Covenant if he were removed to Afghanistan. 4.15 As to the author’s reference to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines (see para. 3.2 above), the State party submits that the fact that the author is a young man belonging to the ethnic minority group of Hazaras does not justify asylum as such. The State party observes in this respect that the author is an ethnic Hazara and that his father originally came from Behsud, bordering on Kabul province, in which ethnic Hazaras constitute 25 per cent of the population. Behsud also borders on an area in which the city of Bamian is the largest city and in which Hazara is the dominant ethnicity. Moreover, the author is a young unmarried male of working age with no health problems. He has never been to Afghanistan and has therefore never 8