CAT/C/71/D/874/2018 the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be personal and present.7 4.4 Regarding the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, the State party clarifies that the complainant has not invoked it as grounds for protection. The State party nevertheless asserts that the situation there has not been deemed such that there is a general need to protect all asylum seekers, although it does not underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the human rights situation in Afghanistan. 8 In its assessment, the Committee must focus on the foreseeable consequences of the complainant’s expulsion to Afghanistan in the light of his personal circumstances, just as the Swedish migration authorities did in their assessments of the present case. 4.5 The State party submits that the national authorities are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to appraise the credibility of his or her statements and claims. The present communication has been thoroughly examined by both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court. 4.6 The State party submits that the complainant has had ample opportunity to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claim and to argue his case, orally as well as in writing, before the Swedish Migration Agency and before the Migration Court. On 2 February 2017, the Migration Agency conducted an extensive asylum investigation with the complainant that lasted over three hours. On 16 March 2017, the Agency conducted a complementary asylum investigation with the complainant that lasted over two hours. Furthermore, the Court held an oral hearing with the complainant on 6 November 2017. The investigations and the hearing were conducted in the presence of the public counsel and interpreters, and the complainant confirmed that he understood the advice of counsel and interpretations. The minutes from the investigations were subsequently communicated to the public counsel. Through his public counsel, the complainant was invited to scrutinize and submit written observations on the minutes from the interviews conducted and to make written submissions and appeals. 4.7 The State party holds that it must be considered that the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court have had sufficient information, together with the facts and documentation in the case, to ensure that they had a solid basis for making a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment concerning the complainant’s need for protection in Sweden. 4.8 The State party submits that, during the initial asylum proceedings, the complainant stated that he was a Shiite Muslim but had left Islam after having taken an interest in Christianity. The complainant also stated that he thought that it was important to belong to a religion in order to be part of society. He claimed that he had started to visit Jehovah’s Witnesses assembly halls in Sweden twice per week and stated that he liked that particular religious community, because they advocated for peace, calm, generosity and justice. However, he did not consider himself to be a Christian, since he had not yet been baptised. 4.9 The Swedish Migration Agency initially held that the complainant’s approach of not following all Islamic traditions and not sharing the values of Islam could not in itself demonstrate that he had left Islam based on a genuine religious conviction. Despite repeated questions posed by the Agency during the investigations to clarify his stated reasons for leaving Islam, the complainant’s account was vague, lacking in detail and not reliable. The Agency noted that the complainant had not presented reliable information showing that he had indeed participated in such religious activities as he had stated. Furthermore, it found the complainant’s account of the elements of Christianity that had made him change his faith to be vague. The Agency held that participation in church activities and religious rituals could 7 8 4 H.O. v. Sweden, communication No. 178/2001, Views adopted on 13 November 2001, para. 13; A.R. v. Netherlands, (CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3; Kalonzo v. Canada, (CAT/C/48/D/343/2008), para. 9.3; and X v. Denmark, (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), para. 9.3. The State party cites numerous country information on Afghanistan by the European Asylum Support Office, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, the Department of State of the United States of America, the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.