CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017 representatives of two organizations are the best alternative he could provide to certify that he does not follow any religion. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale of 10 September 2018, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. 4.2 With regard to the admissibility of the communication, the State party submits that the communication is not sufficiently substantiated and manifestly unfounded and therefore should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure (now rule 99 (b)). 4.3 The State party contends that, with regard to the author’s claim of a violation of article 18 of the Covenant, unlike articles 6 and 7, article 18 does not have extraterritorial application.24 The State party therefore submits that that part of the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (d) of the Committee’s rules of procedure (now rule 99 (d)). 4.4 With regard to the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the State party notes that, when determining whether the expulsion of the author to Afghanistan constitutes a breach of articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general human rights situation in Afghanistan; and (b) in particular, the personal, foreseeable and real risk of breach of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant that the author would be subjected to following his return to Afghanistan. 25 The State party also notes that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, given that it is generally for the domestic authorities to directly review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether a real risk of irreparable harm exists, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.26 4.5 As for the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, the State party notes that Afghanistan is a party to the Covenant, as well as to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 27 The State party also 24 25 26 27 6 J.D. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012), para. 10.7. The State party submits that the Committee’s jurisprudence indicates a high threshold for substantial grounds for establishing that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Therefore, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. X v. Norway (CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014), para. 7.3. The State party also claims that the burden of proof rests with the author, who is required to establish that a real risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 or 7 would be a foreseeable consequence of his expulsion. Hamida v. Canada (CCPR/C/98/D/1544/2007), para. 8.7; A.H.S. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2473/2014), para. 7.5; A.R.J. v. Australia (CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996), paras. 6.8 and 6.14; Dauphin v. Canada (CCPR/C/96/D/1792/2008), para. 7.4; and A.P.J. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2253/2013), para. 9.6. The State party emphasizes that that approach is based on the acceptance by the Committee of the comparative advantage that domestic authorities have in making factual findings due to their direct access to oral testimonies and other materials presented in legal proceedings at the national level. The State party alleges that it is also based on the view that the Committee is not a court of fourth instance that should re-evaluate facts and evidence de novo, referring to the dissenting opinions in Shakeel v. Canada (CCPR/C/108/D/1881/2009). The State party also refers to a number of documents of the United Nations, international organizations, Governments and civil society organizations with regard to the human rights situation in Afghanistan, including the following: United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, “Midyear update on the protection of civilians in armed conflict: 1 January to 30 June 2018”, 15 July 2018; report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security (A/72/888–S/2018/539); European Asylum Support Office, “Country guidance: Afghanistan – guidance note and common analysis”, 21 June 2018, “Country of origin information report: Afghanistan security situation”, 22 December 2017, and the update thereto, 30 May 2018, and “Country of origin information report: Afghanistan individuals targeted by armed actors in the conflict”, 12 December 2017; Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2018: Afghanistan”, 18 January 2018; Migration Agency of Sweden, Lifos. Center för landinformation och landanalys inom migrationsområdet, Temarapport: Afghanistan – Kristna, apostater och ateister (thematic report on