CAT/C/71/D/874/2018 4.15 In his appeal, the complainant stated that he had participated regularly in Bible courses with Jehovah’s Witnesses since the second quarter of 2016 and had now been approved as a preacher who actively visited people from door to door and preached in public places to inform them about Christian teachings. As a result, it was generally known in the community, and especially among fellow Afghans and other Muslims, that he had converted and was a professing the Christian faith. He stated that he intended to continue to practise his religion and to participate in those activities irrespective of where he was. He transmitted a letter from a member of his congregation, who confirmed the complainant’s sincerity and emphasised that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not in the habit of assigning asylum seekers “Christian status” on humanitarian grounds, but set a high standard for people to qualify as active members and preachers. 4.16 The Migration Court noted that it had indeed emerged during the initial asylum proceedings that the complainant had been active and participated in religious activities, even though it was not established exactly what the activities were. The Court therefore considered that the cited impediments were modifications of, and supplements to, the complainant’s previous statements about his religion and associated activities. The circumstances were therefore not new within the meaning of chapter 12, section 19, of the Aliens Act. 4.17 The Migration Court did consider as new evidence the complainant’s claim that the Taliban was aware of his conversion and that he had received threats because of it. However, the Court shared the Swedish Migration Agency’s assessment that the written document submitted was of low probative value. Moreover, the complainant’s account in that regard was considered to be vague and lacking in detail. There was, for example, no explanation of how the Taliban had learned of the complainant’s conversion. The cited information was therefore not sufficiently reliable to reach the standard of proof such that it could be assumed to constitute a risk of serious abuse of the kind referred to in chapter 12, sections 1 to 3, of the Aliens Act. The Court held that the new circumstances could not constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement within the meaning of chapter 12, section 19, of the Act. 4.18 The State party stresses that, considering that converting from one religion to another entails a great impact on a person’s way of living, and considering the dangerous consequences that follow a conversion from Islam to Christianity in Afghanistan, the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court concluded that the complainant’s conversion did not appear to be based on a genuine and personal conviction. The complainant’s account, as presented orally before the Agency and the Court, of the reasons for his conversion and what it meant to him personally was considered vague and lacking in substance. Furthermore, he was deemed to lack knowledge of the Christian religion, even though he claimed to have studied it for a long period of time. Against that background, the national migration authorities maintained that it had not been plausibly demonstrated that the complainant had reached a genuine and in-depth understanding of the Christian faith. He had therefore not plausibly demonstrated that he intended to live as a convert or proselytize upon his return to Afghanistan and thereby face a foreseeable, personal and real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of the Convention. 4.19 The Government contends that nothing has emerged to indicate that the complainant has been ascribed a Christian belief in Afghanistan, which would constitute substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to Afghanistan. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 11 September 2019, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. He claims that his statements as they emerge from the State party’s own submissions, while brief, are credible and representative of the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He points out that the assessment upon which the State party has continuously relied was made when he had not yet provided documentary support. He claims that the State party lacks sufficient understanding of the steps involved in becoming a baptized member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He notes that the State party attaches no weight to the fact that the complainant is engaged in proselytizing activities. The 6