CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017 which the people and authorities in Afghanistan can identify the author. The author reiterates that the information about his being an atheist has spread among the Afghan people through social media. 5.9 With regard to the State party’s claim that the letter to the Embassy of Afghanistan was never brought before the authorities for an assessment, the author alleges that it is not possible under Swedish law to turn to any other migration authority to submit new information while an appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal is pending. Moreover, the author asserts that, even if the letter was submitted to the Migration Court of Appeal, that Court would not consider additional information on the personal matter unless it was of such character that would set a precedent in migration law, according to the previous cases of rejection by the Court. An individual matter such as a letter would therefore have made no difference in the outcome of the Court’s decision to reject the appeal. The author alleges that it would not have been seen as new circumstances, given the stance taken by the State party. 5.10 As for the age of the author, he argues that even adult atheists are at risk of harm in Afghanistan, especially those lacking the protection of a network or family. The author’s age is therefore irrelevant in the assessment of the risk that he may face if returned to Afghanistan. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 5 April 2019, in its additional observations, the State party reiterated its arguments and factual grounds raised in its previous observations. It emphasizes that the “new circumstances” for reconsidering the asylum claim under the Aliens Act refer to more than a matter of modifications or additions to the circumstances originally cited and that the circumstances cited should constitute impediments to enforcement with a risk of the death penalty, torture or persecution. 6.2 Regarding the method of assessment when religion is cited as grounds for asylum, the State party alleges that the Migration Board’s legal position paper, referred to by the author to allege the requirement of oral investigation, contains general recommendations on the application of laws and regulations within the Board’s mandate. The State party notes that the procedures on impediments to enforcement are normally conducted in writing and that an oral hearing only takes place if the author has substantiated that there are new circumstances that can be assumed to constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement and that a new examination of the matter of a residence permit should be made. 32 6.3 Furthermore, the State party notes that, given that the author has stated that he had already started to question his faith during his journey to Sweden, there should have been grounds for him to cite that claim during the ordinary proceedings conducted before his expulsion order became final and non-appealable. 6.4 In that connection, the State party claims that the author’s allegation that he holds a genuine standpoint as an atheist is not sufficiently reliable to meet the standard of proof which “can be assumed to constitute” a risk of serious abuse, as found in the Migration Court, in accordance with international assessment standards. 33 The author’s claim that he 32 33 10 The State party reiterates that the author has the burden of proof to show that such lasting impediments to enforcement exist. The State party notes the judgment in a guiding case before the Migration Court of Appeal (MIG 2011:29), in which it stated that any assessment of the need for asylum on the grounds of religion must be made in accordance with the UNHCR handbook and guidelines. In the same judgment, the Court noted the importance of examining credibility when conversion was cited after an expulsion order became final and non-appealable. As for the author’s argument that the State party failed to follow the Committee’s Views adopted in the case of X v. Sweden, in which the Committee observed that the State party had mainly focused on inconsistencies in the account of specific supporting facts and that insufficient weight had been given to the risk he might face in Afghanistan, the State party reiterates that, in the present case, there was no basis for granting a re-examination in the matter of a residence permit, due to the reasons stated above. In that regard, the State party also notes that the present case differs from F.G. v. Sweden before the European Court of Human Rights, in which the