CCPR/C/130/D/3246/2018 at risk of being killed by both State and non-State actors, and that the State party should consequently be particularly careful before removing him. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 5 December 2019, the State party provided additional observations, submitting that the author’s comments contain no new submissions and do not change its position. The State party adds that, even if it has not addressed some aspects of the author’s submissions, this should not be interpreted as acceptance of the assertions made therein. It observes that, despite hardly mentioning his alleged conversion in the initial submission, the author now claims that the information submitted to the domestic authorities still stands, but he does so without arguing why the domestic authorities’ assessment in this regard was inadequate or violated his rights under the Covenant. 6.2 The State party further observes that, unlike in the F.G. v. Sweden case invoked by the author, the Swedish authorities in the present case did consider the grounds invoked after the initial proceedings as new circumstances. However, the authorities did not consider that these circumstances could be assumed to constitute a lasting impediment to the author’s removal and therefore did not carry out a new examination. The present case therefore clearly differs from F.G. v. Sweden. 6.3 The State party notes that, in M.K.N. v. Sweden, the European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant had not given a reasonable explanation for why he had invoked his homosexual relationship only on appeal against the removal order, more than a year after his arrival in Sweden.10 Given the circumstances of the case, the Court considered the claimed homosexual relationship not to be credible.11 6.4 The State party reiterates that the author had been living in Sweden for at least three years and had been attending a Swedish school before he raised his sexual orientation as a ground for receiving protection. He stated having been aware of the attitudes held towards the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community in Sweden since the spring of 2016 and that he had been open about his sexual orientation while living in Sweden, but only mentioned his sexual orientation while in pre-removal detention, thus raising serious doubts about his credibility. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party does not contest that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Therefore, the Committee considers that it is not precluded under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly ill-founded and that a risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant results neither from the general human rights situation in Afghanistan nor from the author’s account, which is not such as to lead to a conclusion that he would run a foreseeable, real and personal risk. The Committee also notes that the author asserts that the communication is not manifestly ill-founded because it contains detailed information and pictures concerning his sexual orientation, gender identity and religion. He argues that, given the low standard of proof under Swedish law, the evidence submitted and the nature of his claims, he should have been 10 11 6 European Court of Human Rights, M.K.N. v. Sweden, Application No. 72413/10, Judgment, 27 June 2013, paras. 11 and 43. Ibid, para. 43.