CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017 notes that, whereas it does not underestimate the concerns with respect to the current human rights and security situation in Afghanistan, a general situation does not in itself suffice to establish that the author’s expulsion would contravene articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. The assessment before the Committee must therefore focus on the foreseeable consequences to the author of his expulsion to Afghanistan in the light of his personal circumstances. 4.6 The State party submits that the author has failed to substantiate his claim that he would run the personal and real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant if returned to Afghanistan. The State party notes the fact that several provisions in the Aliens Act reflect the same principles as those set out in articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. The Swedish migration authorities therefore apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act as the Committee applies when examining a complaint under the Covenant. 4.7 The State party contends that sufficient due process was guaranteed in assessing the author’s application for asylum. The State party notes that, given that the author initially claimed that he was a minor of 17 years of age,28 the Migration Board appointed a special representative for the author and notified the social service for child protection in October 2015. A public counsel was also appointed for him in November 2015. The Migration Board conducted several interviews with the author in the presence of the public counsel and interpreters, who the author confirmed understood his language well. Therefore, the author had several opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claim and to argue his case, orally as well as in writing, before the Migration Board and, in writing, before the Migration Court. 4.8 Against that backdrop, the State party holds that it must be considered that the Migration Board and the Migration Court had sufficient information, together with the facts and evidence with regard to the present case, to ensure that they had a solid basis for making a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment concerning the author’s need for protection in Sweden. In view of the fact that the Migration Board and the migration courts are specialized bodies, with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice, the State party contends that there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or that it amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the State party holds that considerable weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities. 4.9 With regard to the author’s claims that he risks persecution owing to the fact that he belongs to the Hazara ethnic group, the State party claims that the domestic authorities noted that, from the relevant country of origin information, it followed that the Hazara in Afghanistan were particularly subjected to discrimination and occasionally subjected to targeted attacks. However, the domestic authorities found that the general situation of the Hazara in Afghanistan did not in itself suffice to establish a need for international protection. 4.10 Concerning the claims that the author would be at risk of persecution upon his return to Afghanistan, given that he has disregarded Islam, the State party concedes that, from the relevant country of origin information about Afghanistan, it follows that there is support for the assessment that individuals who return to Afghanistan after having renounced their Muslim beliefs or converted during an asylum process run a real risk of persecution and punishment under the law. It also accepts that mere accusations of apostasy can provoke violence and that people who lack a social network are particularly vulnerable without support. However, the State party notes that there is a possibility for apostates to repent and to return to the Muslim faith. In addition, an asylum seeker has the burden of proof to plausibly demonstrate that a claimed renunciation of Islam is based on a genuine personal conviction. There is therefore no support for the conclusion that a mere claim of 28 Christians, apostates and atheists in Afghanistan), 21 December 2017; and United States Department of State, “2016 report on international religious freedom: Afghanistan”, 31 August 2017. Subsequently, the Agency’s assessment of the author’s oral account of his cited age, with the lack of identity documents, lead the Agency to conclude that he had not plausibly demonstrated that he was a minor. 7