CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017 that the authorities did not seriously assess the author’s beliefs, allowed him no hearing on that point and dismissed the fact that the author’s conversion from Islam to atheism happened gradually after he came to Sweden. 9.5 The Committee considers that, when an asylum seeker submits that he or she has become an atheist after his or her initial asylum request has been dismissed, it may be reasonable for an in-depth examination of the circumstances of the conversion to be carried out by the authorities. 42 However, regardless of the sincerity of the conversion, the test remains whether there are substantial grounds for believing that such a conversion 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 is not sincere, the authorities should proceed to assess whether, in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour and activities of the asylum seeker in connection with his or her conversion or convictions, could have serious adverse consequences in the country of origin so as to put him or her at risk of irreparable harm. 43 9.6 In the present case, the Committee observes that the State party has not contested that individuals who return to Afghanistan after having renounced their Muslim beliefs or converted during an asylum process face a real risk of persecution and punishment, including the death penalty, under the Afghan legal system and that the security situation in Afghanistan has seriously deteriorated.44 In addition, the State party has contested neither the fact that members of the Hazara ethnic group in Afghanistan are subjected to discrimination and occasionally subjected to targeted attacks nor that persons who have no network in or knowledge of the country would be in a vulnerable position. The Committee notes that the author in the present case falls within all of those categories. In addition, the Committee notes that the author has mental health issues, with suicidal ideation, which led him to attempt to commit suicide during the course of the asylum proceedings, and it is highly likely that they will put him in a further vulnerable situation if he is returned to Afghanistan. Considering the aforementioned facts with the fact that the author’s name is widely known by his friends, acquaintances and the general public through the media and social media and that a letter revealing the author’s atheism and identity was sent to the Embassy of Afghanistan to Sweden, it is highly possible that his identity and apostasy will come to the attention of the Afghan people and authorities. The Committee concludes that, owing to the author’s intersecting forms of vulnerability, combined with the multiple riskenhancing factors, he would face serious adverse consequences in the country of origin which would put him at risk of irreparable harm. The Committee notes that the migration authorities nonetheless assessed each of the grounds for protection that the author alleged separately and did not assess the fact that the combined grounds aggravated the risk faced by the author, even though he was facing intersecting forms of vulnerability, which led them to conclude that the author had failed to establish sufficient grounds to substantiate that he would face irreparable harm if returned to Afghanistan. 9.7 In that connection, the Committee recalls that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk that a person might face if deported and considers that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the author, with intersecting forms of vulnerability, would face in Afghanistan. The Committee reiterates that the risk that the author would face if returned to Afghanistan is exacerbated by the fact that he has no family or relatives in that country, which he has not 42 43 44 UNHCR, “Guidelines on international protection: religion-based refugee claims under article 1 (a) (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”, para. 34. 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, para. 156. See also European Asylum Support Office, “Country of origin information report: Afghanistan security situation”, June 2019. The Committee also notes that, in its 2018 Annual Report, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom reiterated that conversion from Islam to another religion was considered apostasy, which was punishable by death, imprisonment or confiscation of property, according to the Sunni Islam Hanafi school of jurisprudence, and that there had been no reports of government prosecutions for blasphemy or apostasy during the year, but converts from Islam to other religions had reported that they continued to fear punishment from the Government and reprisals from family and society. 13