CCPR/C/128/D/3032/2017 4.10 As to the admissibility, the State party submits that the communication is not sufficiently substantiated and is manifestly unfounded, making it inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. As regards the author’s claim under article 18, the State party contends that, unlike articles 6 and 7, article 18 does not have extraterritorial application. It submits that this part of the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol.1 4.11 With regard to the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the State party notes that when determining whether the expulsion of the author to Afghanistan constitutes a breach of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant, the following considerations are relevant: the general human rights situation in Afghanistan and, in particular, the personal, foreseeable and real risk of breach of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant that the author would be subjected to following his return to Afghanistan. The State party also notes that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, as it is generally for the domestic authorities to directly review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether a real risk of irreparable harm exists, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 4.12 As to the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, the State party notes that Afghanistan is a party to the Covenant, as well as to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It also refers to the Migration Agency’s new legal position paper on Afghanistan, indicating that even though the security situation in the country has deteriorated, there is still great variation in the intensity of the conflict in different locations. The State party submits that while it does not wish to underestimate the concerns with respect to the current situation in Afghanistan, a general situation does not in itself suffice to establish that the author’s expulsion would contravene articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The assessment before the Committee must thus focus on the foreseeable consequences of the author’s expulsion to Afghanistan in the light of his personal circumstances. 4.13 The State party submits that the author has failed to substantiate his claim that he would run a personal and real risk of being subjected to treatment in Afghanistan in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The State party points out that several provisions in the Aliens Act of Sweden reflect the same principles as those laid down in articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. Thus, the Swedish migration authorities apply a similar test when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act as the Committee does when it is examining a complaint under the Covenant. 4.14 The Migration Agency conducted several interviews with the author in presence of a public counsel and interpreters. Therefore, the author had several opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claim and to argue his case, both orally and in writing, before the Migration Agency, and in writing before the Migration Court. 4.15 Against this backdrop, the State party holds that it must be considered that the Migration Agency and the Migration Court had sufficient information, together with the facts and evidence in regard to the present case, to ensure that they had a solid basis for making a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk-assessment concerning the author’s case. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Migration Agency and the migration courts are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice, the State party contends that there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or were in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the State party holds that considerable weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities. 4.16 As regards the author’s claims that he risks persecution as he is an ethnic Hazara, the State party refers to country information indicating that the Shia and Hazara ethnic minorities are essentially one and the same group in Afghanistan and that the Taliban has referred to them as “brothers”. The State party further notes that discriminatory intent based 1 J.D. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012), para. 10.7. 5