CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017 enforcement is “a fair reason to assume”. By that measure, the author has attained a basic level of substantiation. Given the fact that the author’s atheism would be considered new circumstances that may be presumed to constitute a permanent impediment to enforcement as referred to in the Aliens Act, it is unclear how the State party can defend the actions of, or rather the failure to act by, the domestic migration authorities. 5.4 The author underlines that a large part of the State party’s observations is standardized general comments that repeat the domestic legal framework or the assessment of the migration authorities and that the core issues are not sufficiently addressed. The author claims that it is not sufficient from a human rights perspective that the Aliens Act reflects the same principles as those set out in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant and reiterates that its implementation is important. The author alleges that it is not true that the Swedish Migration authorities apply the same test in consideration of an application for asylum as the Committee applies when examining a communication under the Optional Protocol, given that they have disregarded the UNHCR guidelines. The author concludes that the State party only makes general comments regarding the provisions in the law but does not detail whether or how the conclusions drawn by the authorities were reasonable. 5.5 The author reiterates that the conclusions drawn by the migration authorities were subjective and arbitrary, with the wrong standard of proof and method applied. The author notes that, although the interviews of the author were held in 2015 and 2016, which the State party observed to ensure that the migration authorities had a solid basis for making a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment concerning the author’s grounds for protection, the claim concerning the author’s apostasy was made in 2017, and there was no oral interview held to assess that new claim. With regard to the burden of proof to demonstrate that the author would face a risk of persecution due to religious beliefs, the author alleges that, whereas he concedes that he has the burden of proof, it must be set in relationship to the investigative responsibilities of the authorities and their positive international human rights obligations. The author underlines that the burden of proof is a shared responsibility and that the applicant must be given an opportunity to orally substantiate his or her claims that the renunciation of Islam is based on genuine personal conviction.30 5.6 The author refutes the Migration Board decision of 21 August 2017, which the State party made a reference to, in which the Board indicated that the author’s religious affiliation had been examined before and therefore did not constitute a new claim. Because the author had not raised the claim that he was atheist in the assessment by the Board until then, the author argues that it is unfair that his claim of being an atheist was not considered in the assessment as a new claim that would constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement of the removal order under the Aliens Act. 5.7 The author contends that the State party’s assertions that his claim of being an atheist came too late in the process and that he had not demonstrated that he had a valid reason for not citing those circumstances until then are admissions that those claims were not duly considered. The author argues that the assessment was very subjective and placed too much weight on procedural matters in a way that the reasons for asylum became less relevant, which is against the Committee’s jurisprudence and the State party’s obligations under international law and standards.31 5.8 The author submits that it is misleading – and crucially disregards the risks faced by the author – for the State party to claim that the news articles concerning the author were mainly about protests against his expulsion and that the author did not plausibly demonstrate that the articles would come to the attention of the Afghan public and authorities. The author notes that there are articles concerning his atheism that include his picture, which are accessible by the public even through a simple web search, through 30 31 The author refers to the Swedish migration authorities’ guidelines, in which it is suggested that written evidence is not sufficient to make an assessment of the genuineness of faith and that oral examination is crucial for the assessment thereof. The author also refers to the UNHCR guideline, that a careful investigation of the circumstances and the genuineness of the conversion be requested. See X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008); the UNHCR guidelines; and European Court of Human Rights, F.G. v. Sweden (application No. 43611/11), judgment of 23 March 2016. 9