CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017 renunciation of Islam suffices to conclude that there is a real risk of persecution of an individual that would warrant international protection. 4.11 In that connection, the State party reiterates that, when assessing whether the author’s renunciation of Islam was based on a genuine personal conviction, the Migration Court found that the author’s reasoning in that regard was general and did not express any deeper personal reflection. 29 In addition, the Migration Court questioned why the author presented that information only after the expulsion order had become final and nonappealable. The State party emphasizes that, considering that the author seems to have been aware of the consequences of a denunciation of Islam upon return to Afghanistan, the fact that he did not mention that until he was encountered by the Swedish police and after he was put in detention to enforce the expulsion order to Afghanistan – about two years after he claimed to have changed his attitude towards Islam – raises doubts as to the veracity of those claims questions. The State party notes that the Migration Court took into account in its assessment the risk of the author being imputed to be an atheist when he was returned to Afghanistan. 4.12 With regard to the news articles that the author submitted before the domestic migration authorities, the State party notes that, in fact, it is not clear from any of the articles that the author has rejected Islam. The author’s name appears in articles that mainly concern a sit-down protest against expulsions to Afghanistan. In that respect, it should be noted that, during the domestic proceedings, the author did not substantiate his cited identity and did not plausibly demonstrate that those articles had come to the attention of the Afghan public or the Afghan authorities in such a way that he would be associated with them upon his return to Afghanistan. 4.13 Furthermore, the State party notes that the letter that the author submitted to the Embassy of Afghanistan was dated 18 October 2017. The State party highlights the fact that, even though the letter was dated before the Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant him leave to appeal on 21 November 2017, it was not submitted to that court for examination, nor was it submitted to any other migration authority for assessment as to whether the new circumstances that had emerged in the case would constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement of the removal order under chapter 12, section 19, of the Aliens Act. 4.14 Regarding the author’s state of health, the State party shares the domestic migration authorities’ conclusion that the author cannot be deemed to have substantiated the claim that his health problems are severe enough to conclude that a transfer to Afghanistan would raise an issue under the Covenant. 4.15 The State party holds that the author’s account and the facts relied on by him in the complaint are insufficient to conclude that the alleged risk of ill-treatment upon his return to Afghanistan meets the requirements of being a foreseeable, real and personal risk. Consequently, enforcement of the expulsion order would not, under the present circumstances, constitute a violation of the obligations of Sweden under articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 21 January 2019, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. 5.2 With regard to admissibility, the author concedes that article 18 does not have extraterritorial applicability but maintains his claims regarding articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 5.3 Regarding the State party’s submission that the communication is inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation, the author contends that it is the State party who failed to investigate the author’s claim and to make a proper risk assessment. The author reiterates that the standard of proof required in the Aliens Act in relation to impediments to 29 8 The State party claims that the assessment is in line with the UNHCR handbook and guidelines and jurisprudence from the Migration Court of Appeal of Sweden.