CAT/C/71/D/908/2019 of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.28 8.6 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that as a Christian convert, he risks being subjected to torture and possibly to death by Afghan authorities, the Taliban, and private persons including his family and relatives, if returned to Afghanistan, where conversion is considered as apostasy in Islamic law and shameful in society. The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that the Swedish authorities’ assessment of his claims was arbitrary and deficient and that the State party failed to assess in substance the fact that his Christian faith was based on genuine conviction, and the threats made against the complainant on social media. The Committee also notes the complainant’s assertion that his claim of conversion as a protection ground for asylum was only examined by the Migration Court. 8.7 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant had ample opportunities to explain to the migration authorities the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claim and to argue his case, orally and in writing, regarding his conversion and the risks he would face in Afghanistan as a Christian convert. It also notes the State party’s argument that the domestic authorities questioned the sincerity of the complainant’s conversion after a thorough investigation of his claims and came to the conclusion that his conversion was not genuine. The domestic authorities considered that the complainant’s account of the reasons for his conversion and what Christianity meant to him personally were general and vague and noted that the complainant did not cite his alleged interest in Christianity as a ground for protection in the early stage of the proceedings. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations that the complainant’s claims about the threats received in relation to his conversion have been assessed and found by the domestic authorities not to be credible. 8.8 While recognizing the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Afghanistan with regard to Christian converts, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant runs a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of torture. While the Committee is not in a position to assess the genuineness of the complainant’s conversion, it emphasizes that, in their assessment of the complainant’s asylum application, the State party’s authorities should adequately assess the possible risk of ill-treatment of a Christian convert as a perceived apostate upon return to Afghanistan. 8.9 In the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, the Committee observes that the parties do not contest the fact that the complainant was given several opportunities in the asylum proceedings to explain and clarify, both orally and in writing, the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claims that he had converted to Christianity out of personal and genuine religious convictions. The Committee notes that an oral hearing in the Migration Court took place for several hours in the presence of a public counsel and an interpreter and that the complainant had the possibility of submitting written comments on the findings of the migration authorities, including complaints regarding any procedural issues, through his public counsel. In this connection, the Committee notes that although the complainant alleges that his claim of conversion as a ground of protection was only examined by one instance, he did not put forth that claim at the initial stage of examination by the Swedish Migration Agency, nor did he raise any complaints regarding procedural issues before the Migration Court, despite having the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the complainant fails to provide reasonable or convincing accounts of the reason why he did not or could not do so. In the circumstances of the present case and from the information before it, the Committee cannot conclude that there have been any serious errors in the procedure for examination by the Migration Court of the complainant’s claims of conversion as a ground of protection. 8.10 The Committee also observes the complainant’s claim about the threats he received on social media, which may serve to spread information about his Christian activities to his 28 10 Ibid., para. 50.