CAT/C/60/D/677/2015 7.5 The Committee notes the State party’s statement that it was not until the complainant’s appeal against the Migration Court judgment lodged on 1 October 2014 that he stated that he had questioned Islam as early as at age 14, even though he had had various opportunities to raise the issue earlier; that, even though the complainant is a literate man, his answers were very vague as to the reasons for his conversion and the effects of the conversion on his life; that he did not express his intention of living in Afghanistan as a convert; and that there were no grounds or evidence to support the complainant’s allegations that his conversion would have been brought to the attention of Afghan authorities. The Committee further notes that the author argued, inter alia, that he had not appeared in person before the Migration Court; and that he had been living with other Afghans, now returned to Afghanistan, who had learned about his conversion. 7.6 The Committee observes that the Swedish Migration Court thoroughly examined the complainant’s allegations and evidence regarding his conversion and the general situation of converts in Afghanistan, but concluded that the complainant lacked credibility with regard to the genuine nature of his conversion and that there was no evidence that such conversion would have come to the attention of the Afghan authorities. The Committee observes that the complainant has failed to submit convincing arguments to show that the assessment by the Swedish authorities of the facts and evidence he presented was arbitrary. Furthermore, the complainant’s claim that his conversion in Sweden would have come to the attention of the Afghan authorities is speculative, as it is not based on specific facts. Therefore, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the complainant has failed to substantiate the existence of a personal risk of violation of article 3 of the Convention in the case of his return to Afghanistan. 7.7 The Committee concludes, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, that the complaint is manifestly unfounded. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the complainant. 6