CCPR/C/128/D/3032/2017 upon ethnicity or religion was not documented among the motives for the many instances of targeting the Hazara. While discrimination against ethnic Hazaras persists, Sunni versus Shia discrimination is on the decline and confined to some localities. In light of the foregoing, the State party’s authorities found that the general situation for ethnic Hazaras did not in itself suffice to establish a need for international protection. 4.17 The State party accepts that Christians in Afghanistan and those returning there are generally at risk of persecution because of their beliefs. It notes, however, that the asylum seeker must substantiate that he or she belongs to a group that is at risk of persecution because of religious beliefs. The State party also submits that the author’s Christian faith must be based on genuine conviction. Having conducted extensive interviews with the author, the State party’s authorities found that his accounts were unreliable or not credible. In particular, the Migration Agency noted the author’s statement that his Christian parents had not really taught their children about Christianity or what it meant to be a Christian. In light of how unusual Christianity is in Afghanistan and the considerable pressure on Christians, the Agency considered that the author’s family must have lived under unusual and difficult circumstances and that only the most devout and genuine believers would take such risks of living as Christians in Afghanistan. It thus found it strange that the author’s parents had not told him more about Christianity. Furthermore, his responses to the questions about his Christian life in Afghanistan were found to be very brief and lacking in detail. While noting his young age at that time, the Agency considered that he, as a young adult, should be able to explain more about this upbringing based on his own perspective today. The Agency further observed that the author failed to explain anything about his thoughts or feelings regarding how it was to be different from other children in the area. 4.18 Furthermore, the State party notes the author’s statement that he had no knowledge of Christianity during his time in Afghanistan or when he and his brother went to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The author also stated that he had obtained knowledge about Christianity by watching a film about Jesus at his workplace in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Agency found this account implausible, given the status of Islam in that country. It also considered that the author failed to describe in a detailed and authentic way what drew him to Christianity and why he decided to explore the religion in Sweden. In this connection, the Agency took note of the author’s statement that he had left the Islamic Republic of Iran to secure his future and obtain an education. Furthermore, the author’s claim that his parents died because of their religion was deemed speculative, as he was not able to explain how he had obtained this information and he had never received any confirmation of their deaths. 4.19 In addition, the State party notes that the author’s claim that the Migration Court’s decision had been erroneous was not raised in his appeal to the Migration Court of Appeals. In his appeal, he only argued that the Migration Court’s decision contained misunderstandings and errors without specifying what they were. 4.20 In conclusion, the State party notes that during the domestic asylum proceedings, the author’s accounts were considered to be far too brief, too lacking in detail and too contradictory to be deemed a personal experience. Neither his account of his upbringing as a Christian in Afghanistan nor his account of wanting to live as a Christian in Sweden was considered reliable. The State party concludes that the author has failed to substantiate that his faith is based on genuine personal religious conviction or that, upon return to Afghanistan, he intends to practice Christianity. The State party therefore considers that the author’s deportation would not constitute a violation of its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 15 October 2018, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 With regard to his claim under article 18, he concedes that article 18 does not have extraterritorial application, but he maintains his claims under articles 6 and 7. 5.3 The author reiterates that no new hearing was granted after the exhaustion of ordinary remedies and that he therefore never had a chance to orally substantiate all the 6