CCPR/C/113/D/2515/2014
enshrined in article 18, he must be able to manifest his religion and to carry out activities
related to it.
3.4
The author claims that the State party violated his right under article 26 of the
Covenant since the question of his conversation to Christianity was not examined at the
first instance by the Danish Immigration Service but only by the Danish Refugee Board.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
4.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights
Committee must determine whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant.
4.2
As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee
has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement.
4.3
The Committee observes that the author’s original request for asylum on the grounds
of his fear of persecution by a private individual was refused by the Danish Immigration
Service and the Danish Refugee Board. Since the author claimed that he had converted to
Christianity after these decisions, on 22 November 2014, the Board reopened the author’s
case in order to examine his request for asylum on this new ground, giving the author
opportunity to substantiate his new allegations and to submit evidence in support of them.
On 27 October 2014, the Board dismissed his new allegations due to, inter alia, his
contradicting statements and his failure to show that the Afghan authorities might be aware
of his conversion. The author disagrees with this decision. However, the Committee
observes that his claims mainly rely on his mere membership of a particular Christian
church and that he has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process, or
to explain why the decision of the Board is manifestly arbitrary, for instance, owing to its
failure to take properly into account a relevant risk factor. Accordingly, the Committee
considers that the author’s claims under articles 7, 18 and 26 of the Covenant have been
insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and concludes that the present
communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
5.
The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
(a)
Protocol;
(b)
4
That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional
That the decision be transmitted to the State party and to the author.