CCPR/C/132/D/3266/2018 to the fact that he grew up in a homophobic country. When he started a relationship in Sweden, he was at first afraid that the situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran would repeat itself, that is, that people would treat him the way he was treated in that country. He has explained that he was afraid that rumours would spread. Furthermore, he argues that no consideration was made for the fact that he was not used to talking about his sexuality, or for cultural differences between Sweden and Afghanistan. Sweden is an individualistic society and Afghanistan is not. Citizens of Afghanistan often do not have the experience to reflect on questions involving oneself, and questions relating to one’s personality. It is especially hard to reflect on issues that are taboo. 5.6 The author reiterates his arguments that he would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant owing to his conversion to Christianity. He argues that he has clearly expressed his reasons for converting and that the conversion is genuine. He further argues that in cases such as his, it is important to assess the cumulative effect of the risks when an asylum seeker belongs to several vulnerable groups or risk profiles. The needs for protection (apostasy and sexuality) are intertwined and together they constitute a great part of his identity. In his case, his religion and sexuality are intertwined and his choice to convert and to leave Islam is linked to his sexuality and the severe harassment that he has previously faced. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the author’s claims under article 17 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust all available domestic remedies as the author has not raised those claims before the domestic authorities. The Committee notes the author’s argument that he cannot exhaust his claims under article 17 of the Covenant in the State party as residence permits are usually only granted to applicants based on family connection such as that to a child, which is not the case in his situation. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, although there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies if they have no prospect of being successful, authors of communications must exercise due diligence in the pursuit of available remedies and that mere doubts or assumptions about their effectiveness do not absolve the authors from exhausting them.2 The Committee observes that, in the present case, the author has not made any attempt to raise his claims under article 17 of the Covenant before the domestic authorities. The Committee therefore finds his claims under article 17 of the Covenant to be inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims that his deportation to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant because of his sexual orientation and his conversion to Christianity. The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the author has failed to substantiate his claims for the purposes of admissibility. It notes the State party’s argument there is no reason to conclude that the decisions of the domestic authorities were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. It notes the State party’s argument that the Migration Agency held two separate investigations with the author lasting a total of five hours and focusing on his alleged sexual orientation, in which a specialist took part, but that the author’s account was found to be vague and lacking in detail and personal perception. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the 2 See, inter alia, V.S. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/115/D/2072/2011), para. 6.3; García Perea v. Spain (CCPR/C/95/D/1511/2006), para. 6.2; and Vargay v. Canada (CCPR/C/96/D/1639/2007), para. 7.3. 7