CAT/C/71/D/874/2018 proselytizing by the complainant has not been considered separately, because it was a supplement of the previously considered claim of conversion. 8.8 While recognizing the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Afghanistan with regard to Christian converts, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of torture. Although the Committee is not in a position to assess the genuineness of the complainant’s conversion, it emphasises that, in its assessment of the complainant’s asylum application, the State party’s authorities should adequately assess the possible risk of ill-treatment of a Christian convert as a perceived apostate upon return to Afghanistan. 8.9 In the light of all the information submitted by the parties, the Committee observes that the parties do not contest the fact that the complainant was given a number of opportunities in the asylum proceedings to explain and clarify, both orally and in writing, the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claims. The Committee notes that each oral hearing took place over the course of several hours in the presence of a public counsel and an interpreter and that the complainant had the possibility to submit written comments on the findings of the migration authorities through his public counsel. In that regard, the Committee notes that the complainant, who allegedly had participated in the activities of the Jehovah’s Witnesses community since 2015 and had started studying Bible, including through private teaching and attending church twice per week in the third quarter of 2016, was found not to be a genuine convert by the Migration Court in its decision delivered in December 2017. The State party therefore did not consider as substantiated the complainant’s claim that he would continue to act as a practicing Christian if returned to Afghanistan. The Committee notes that, only three months later, in March 2018, the complainant became a preacher and presented that fact as a new claim against his expulsion. 8.10 The Committee observes that the complainant claims to have been proselytizing for 18 months, at the time of submission of his comments to the observations of the State party. He claimed that he was preaching publicly and going from door to door, including among the Muslim community, which exposed him to the risk of persecution and the risk that information about his Christian activities could spread to his home country. The Committee notes that, despite that general allegation, the complainant has not presented information on any specific threat that he might have been exposed to during that period. He limited himself to the statement that his conversion was genuine, that he was actively proselytizing and that the domestic authorities had erroneously considered the claim as a supplement to the already assessed claim of conversion and did not evaluate it on its own. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that, once the domestic authorities, after a due assessment of his claims, found the complainant’s conversion not to be genuine, a further claim ensuing from such conversion, should not be reasonably expected to lead to a new evaluation and new findings, especially given the brief period that had passed between the initial assessment and the request for a new assessment. 8.11 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds for it to conclude that he runs a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Afghanistan. Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that the State party’s authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations within the domestic proceedings. The Committee therefore considers that the evidence on file does not enable it to conclude that the return of the complainant to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Afghanistan by the State party would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10