CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017 visited since he left at a very young age, and that he does not speak fluently either the official or the widely spoken languages of the country. The Committee notes in particular that the Migration Board did not assess the author’s behaviour and activities in connection with his atheist convictions. The Committee also notes that, when informed about new grounds for asylum based on the author’s conversion, the Migration Court could have remitted the case to the Migration Board for reconsideration, which would have allowed those new grounds to be assessed at the two degrees of jurisdiction that are standard in asylum matters, and that the issue could have been analysed in detail, as a whole with the other risk factors, and the decision based on oral interviews covering all of those factors. 9.8 In view of the above, the Committee considers that the State party failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to Afghanistan as a perceived apostate with myriad risk-enhancing factors. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the State party failed to give due consideration to the consequences of the author’s personal situation in his country of origin and concludes that his removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Afghanistan would, if implemented, be a violation by the State party of his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, in which it is established that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to proceed to a review of the author’s case taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant and the present Views of the Committee. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author while his request for asylum is being reconsidered. 12. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. In addition, it requests he State party to publish the present Views. 14