A/HRC/7/10/Add.1 page 63 interest in Christianity, she has not officially changed, or tried to change her religion, and no evidence was provided of any persecution. 269. Ms. Razavi also claimed that her husband had obtained a Court verdict sentencing her to death by stoning due to her adultery. However, at the appeal before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal it was found that Ms. Razavi was an unreliable witness and her account was not considered credible. The Immigration Judge at this appeal did accept that Ms. Razavi had converted to Christianity and that she had carried out some evangelical activities whilst in the United Kingdom by handing our leaflets and visiting people in her local neighbourhood to discuss Christianity. Furthermore, the Immigration Judge indicated the following: “Consideration of the objective evidence in Iran shows that some sections of Christianity, particularly Evangelists, Proselytisers are more at risk (or even at real risk) than other Christians in Iran. However, Christianity is generally tolerated. A consideration of the objective evidence also shows that the nature of the real risk is generally of severe harassment as opposed to persecution. There have been few deaths for example or lengthy imprisonments over recent years relating particularly to Proselytisers. Whilst the Appellant is apparently interested in spreading the message of Christianity, her activities are with her present church and in the company of the Pastor’s wife. I do not find these activities place the Appellant in the category of a convert with a high profile role. There is evidence that churches with an Evangelical element to them and their congregation are able to practice with a measure of tolerance in Iran and I do not find that his particular Appellant, who has only been baptised for barely a year, is at risk of attracting the adverse attention of the Iranian authorities.” 270. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal also considered this matter in depth and evaluated Ms. Razavi’s claim that as a convert to Christianity she would face ill-treatment in her country of origin due to her vulnerability. Upon dismissing her appeal, the Lord Justices found that “[…] the protection available to the appellant against her vulnerability as a single woman convert was enough to place her, on return, below the threshold of real risk of persecution or of inhuman or degrading treatment”. 271. The Government stated that Ms. Razavi’s asylum claim was given careful consideration by the Border and Immigration Agency with specific regard to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. The decision to refuse her asylum and human right applications have been overseen by the appropriate independent appellate authorities and reviewed on two occasions by the United Kingdom Court of Appeal. 272. Since the dismissal of her appeal on 17 May 2007, Ms. Razavi has submitted a document which she claimed is an arrest warrant issued by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Court. The document is based on apostasy in her home country. It formed the basis of a fresh asylum claim submitted on 12 July 2007. This application was rejected because it was decided that for several reasons little (if any) evidential weight could be attached to the document for a number of reasons. The original document had not been submitted (only a faxed copy) and no explanation had been offered as to how this document had been obtained. It should be noted that documents of this type are not routinely distributed by the authorities of Iran. The British Embassy in Tehran confirmed that the document was not genuine.