CCPR/C/126/D/2603/2015 9.7 The Committee recalls the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which held in H. and B. v. United Kingdom that the applicant’s former employment as an interpreter for the United States could not solely demonstrate that the applicant would be at risk in his country of origin, but rather the individual circumstances of his case, the nature of his connections and his profile should also be examined. On the other hand, the Committee also refers to J.K. and others v. Sweden, which established that past illtreatment provided a strong indication of a future, real risk of ill-treatment in cases in which a generally coherent and credible account of events had been presented by the asylum seeker that was consistent with the available country information. In such circumstances, the Court held that it was for the Government to dispel any doubts about that risk. The Committee recalls that the Court held that the requirement that an asylum seeker be able to show the existence of individual risk apart from the general perils in the country of destination is, however, less strict, for example, where he or she is a member of a vulnerable group exposed to systematic ill-treatment.22 9.8 The Committee also recalls the latest UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan, which establish that civilians associated with or perceived as supportive of the international military forces fall into a risk profile and may therefore be in need of international refugee protection. 23 9.9 In the present case, the Committee notes that even though in its decision of 9 March 2015 the Board found most of the author’s allegations to be not credible except for his assertion that he had worked for the international forces for five years, in its decision of 18 April 2016 the Board reassessed the author’s statements and accepted substantial elements of them as being facts. It follows that it is not the non-credibility of the author, but rather the issue of to what extent the incidents that have been accepted as facts – particularly in light of the author’s failure to establish the link between his activity in the international forces and his kidnapping – are capable of showing that the author would face a real and personal risk of irreparable harm upon his forcible return. 9.10 The Committee recalls that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk that a person faces if deported, and considers that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the author would face as someone who had previously collaborated with the international forces. The Committee considers that against the background of the Board accepting that the author had provided a generally coherent and credible account of events, including the reference to the threatening letters from the Taliban as well as to his abduction and detention by the Taliban for four months, these incidents of past ill-treatment provide a strong indication of a future, real and personal risk of persecution contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The fact that the author’s account of events is consistent with information from reliable and objective sources about the general situation in Afghanistan, especially those concerning individuals belonging to a targeted group, render such indication even stronger. 9.11 The Committee is mindful of the State party’s main argument that the Board found that the author’s detention was not connected to his work for the United States forces and that he had not been identified during his capture. In this context, the Committee notes, however, that the fact that the author was not identified by the Taliban during his detention does not rule out that his abduction was linked to his work for the international forces or that he would be captured again by the Taliban upon his return, which assumption reasonably follows from the previous threats he had received and which were accepted as facts by the Board. Hence, the Committee is of the view that considering the overall 22 23 10 personal circumstances, such as his former position fighting drug-related crimes and his cooperation with several foreign agencies in that capacity, together with the threats he had received, even though these had not been found credible by the domestic courts, disclosed a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. European Court of Human Rights, H. and B. v. United Kingdom (applications Nos. 70073/10 and 44539/11), decision of 9 April 2013, para. 100, and J.K. and others v. Sweden (application No. 59166/12), decision of 23 August 2016, paras. 102–103. UNHCR, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan, 30 August 2018 (HCR/EG/AFG/18/02), available at www.refworld.org/docid/5b8900109.html.