CAT/C/71/D/874/2018 that such a conversion would have come to the attention of the Afghan authorities. The complainant has failed to submit convincing arguments to show that the assessments of the domestic authorities of the facts and evidence, during both the ordinary proceedings and the subsequent application for a re-examination, were arbitrary. Furthermore, his claims that his alleged conversion in Sweden would have come to the attention of anyone in Afghanistan is speculative, given that it is not based on reliable or verifiable facts. 6.3 The State party maintains its position that there is no reason to conclude that the domestic rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The State party also maintains that the complainant’s account and the facts relied on by him in the complaint are insufficient to conclude that the alleged risk of ill-treatment upon his return to Afghanistan meets the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Consequently, an enforcement of the expulsion order would not, under the present circumstances, constitute a violation of Sweden’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it will not consider any complaint unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on those grounds. Accordingly, it considers that it is not precluded under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the present communication. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the complainant’s claims are insufficiently substantiated. In the light of the information on file and the arguments presented by the parties, the Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the complainant has sufficiently substantiated his claims, which raise substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention. 7.4 In the light of the above, and given that the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.3 The Committee must assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon removal to Afghanistan. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of return. The Committee recalls that the aim of the assessment is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment in the country to 8