CCPR/C/128/D/3032/2017 7.4 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party’s authorities considered that the author’s accounts regarding his Christian parents, upbringing and faith were not credible and that he thus failed to substantiate that his conviction was genuine, despite the certificate of baptism and the letters of support from a Christian pastor. The Committee also notes the authorities’ conclusion that the author has failed to substantiate that, in Afghanistan, he would risk persecution by the Afghan authorities because of his Christianity. In this connection, the Committee notes the author’s view that the assessment of his claim regarding his Christianity was arbitrary, as the authorities disregarded the facts that, although he was born into a Christian family, he was a child when he lost his parents and that his faith was therefore that of a child, which has further evolved after his arrival in Sweden. In this regard, the Committee notes that the State party’s authorities found that the author had failed to describe in a detailed and convincing manner how he had learned about Christianity in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and why he had decided to further explore Christianity upon his arrival in Sweden. The Committee also observes that the State party’s authorities noted the author’s statement that he had left the Islamic Republic of Iran to secure his future and obtain an education. 7.5 The Committee considers that, in any event, as concerns an asylum seeker’s claim of conversion or religious conviction, the test is whether, regardless of the sincerity of the conversion or conviction, there are substantial grounds for believing that such conversion or conviction may have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin such as to create a real risk of irreparable harm, as contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, even when it is found that the reported conversion or conviction is not sincere, the authorities should proceed to assess whether, in the circumstances of the case, the asylum seeker’s behaviour and activities in connection with his or her conversion or conviction, could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put him or her at risk of irreparable harm.9 7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes the finding of the Migration Agency that, while claiming a risk of harm in Afghanistan because of his Christian faith, the author failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim that his faith had attracted the attention of: the Afghan authorities through his texts on social media networks and his appearance in the Swedish media; the staff members of the Afghan Embassy in Stockholm; and other Afghan detainees in the migration detention centre. The Committee also finds that although the author contests the assessment and findings of the Swedish authorities, he has not presented any evidence to the Committee to substantiate his claim that he has been targeted by the Afghan authorities on the basis of his Christianity, or that his alleged Christianity is indeed known to the Afghan authorities. 7.7 The Committee considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements available when evaluating the risk of irreparable harm faced by the author upon his return to Afghanistan. The Committee also considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, he has not shown that the Migration Agency’s decision of 30 December 2015 was arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or that it amounted to a denial of justice. 7.8 The Committee recalls that the obligation not to remove an individual contrary to a State party’s obligations under the Covenant applies at the time of removal and that, in cases of imminent deportation, the material point in time for assessing this issue must be that of its own consideration of the case.10 Accordingly, in the context of the communications procedure under the Optional Protocol, in assessing the facts submitted by the parties for consideration, the Committee must also take into account new developments that may have an impact on the risks that an author subject to removal may face. In the present case, the information in the public domain has signalled a significant deterioration 9 10 S.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/121/D/2419/2014), para. 11.8. See also European Court of Human Rights, F.G. v. Sweden (application no. 43611/11), judgment of 23 March 2016, para. 156. See, e.g., S.Z. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015), para. 7.9. 9