CAT/C/71/D/908/2019 Afghanistan.21 Thus, the complainant alleges that the State party has not considered serious consequences that he will face as an apostate in Afghanistan. 5.6 In this connection, the complainant disagrees with the allegation by the State party that he was given ample opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claim, both orally and in writing, and that the migration authorities were given sufficient information and were therefore able to carry out a well-informed, transparent and proportionate examination with regard to his situation. 5.7 Furthermore, the complainant argues that it is wrong or contrary to recent domestic case law that the State party should question the genuineness of the complainant’s faith on the basis of the timing of the conversion. The complainant, referring to recent case law of the Migration Court of Appeal, argues that there is generally no reason to question an individual for not conveying an interest in the Christian faith earlier during asylum-seeking proceedings, as the timing of conversion is difficult to pinpoint.22 5.8 Regarding the State party’s allegation that the complainant did not bring up the argument of procedural or systemic deficiencies in domestic proceedings, the complainant argues that this was because those points have since been raised and thoroughly examined in the media, and by attorneys, church representatives and others, after the domestic proceedings were over. 5.9 In summary, the complainant maintains that the complaint should be declared admissible and that the communication reveals a violation of the Convention as is stated in the complaint. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 26 May 2020, the State party submitted additional observations in which it stated that the complainant’s comments did not contain any new information, and maintained the position that it had expressed in its original observations of 12 July 2019. 6.2 The State party notes that according to information received from the Swedish Police Authority, the decision to expel the complainant to Afghanistan was enforced on 6 May 2019. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee recalls that in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on this ground. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the present communication. 7.3 The Committee further notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the complainant’s claims are insufficiently substantiated. In the light of the information on file and the arguments presented by the parties, the Committee considers, however, that for the purposes of admissibility, the complainant has 21 22 8 The complainant refers to the European Court of Human Rights case of A.A. v Switzerland (application No. 32218/17), in which the Court considered that the return of the applicant to Afghanistan would entail a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and ruled that the Swiss court had not carried out a sufficient assessment of the risks that the applicant would personally face as a Christian convert if returned to Afghanistan. Migration Court of Appeal case MIG 2019:25.