CAT/C/71/D/908/2019 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 7 January 2020, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 In regard to the admissibility of the case, the complainant asserts that his communication is not manifestly unfounded and that the minimum level of substantiation required for the purpose of admissibility has been met since he gives sufficient information about being at risk of being treated in a manner that would be in breach of article 3 of the Convention if returned to Afghanistan as a Christian convert. The complainant reiterates that in Afghanistan, where 0.3 per cent of the population are of a religion other than Islam, 16 Christians have to hide their beliefs owing to fear of reprisals and persecution and are not able to freely live out or manifest their religious faith.17 The complainant also reiterates that under the Afghan judicial system, the Constitution stipulates that no law shall be contrary to Islamic law, and any Christian convert is liable to be punished by death as an apostate. He also emphasizes that there is a high probability that the apostate’s own family, or other civilians, may take the case into their own hands, as conversion often means shame for the whole family or community.18 5.3 Regarding the merit of the present case, the complainant reiterates that he is facing a personal, foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of article 3 of the Convention. The complainant alleges that he has accounted for his genuine conversion and belief by means of numerous testimonies from pastors and church leaders, as well as with his baptism certificate which is not questioned by the State party. 5.4 The complainant reiterates that the State party’s allegation that his conversion was not out of genuine conviction is based on an arbitrary assessment in flawed domestic proceedings. The complainant asserts that decisions by the migration authorities are not based on a complete and full assessment of the facts, but on individual, sometimes politically determined, preferences of officers and lay judges who do not have expertise in religious matters. 19 The complainant argues that it is not in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement to return converts to Afghanistan, no matter how deep or not their convictions are. On the other hand, he also alleges that the depth of a person’s convictions is difficult to assess within a two- to three-hour interview, and that the national authorities require a disproportionately high level of knowledge about theological issues, without consideration of the complainant’s age, cultural, educational and religious educational background, and verbal communication skills, or of the duration of the conversion process.20 5.5 The complainant also reiterates that the examination by the migration authorities predominantly depends on the complainant’s ability to express himself or herself verbally, and that, in his own case, it did not take into consideration written evidence supporting his oral statement, especially certificates from experienced and theologically educated church leaders. The complainant also states that he was not questioned regarding the everyday practice of his Christian faith and how he could, if returned, continue to practise it in 16 17 18 19 20 Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2017: Afghanistan. The complainant reiterates the risks faced by Christians in Afghanistan, referring to the reports already cited in his initial submission. He adds that two Afghan Christians who had risked the death penalty for apostasy had been released in 2010 and 2011 due to international attention and pressure, according to a 2017 report of the Swedish Migration Agency. The complainant again refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in F.G. v. Sweden (application No. 43611/11), in which it was found that it was impossible for the applicant, a Christian convert, to manifest his faith openly in the Islamic Republic of Iran and that his expulsion to the Islamic Republic of Iran would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). Ibid. Referring to the recent parliamentary debate, the complainant argues that the migration authorities lack the relevant expertise and knowledge to assess the genuineness of the convictions of a Christian convert. The author reiterates that this is against the UNHCR guidelines on international protection regarding religion-based refugee claims. 7