CAT/C/71/D/874/2018 complainant provides a letter of attestation from his congregation in support of his sincere belief and active religious practice. 5.2 The complainant notes that the State party repeatedly describes his account as vague and lacking in detail, without providing details as to what type of questions the complainant has failed to answer or what information he has failed to provide. The State party contends that the complainant has been unable to elaborate on the reasons for his conversion, but his statements, reflected in the Swedish Migration Agency’s decision of 31 July 2017, although brief, grasp the essence of his convictions and are consistent with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs.9 5.3 The complainant submits that, even though the State party eventually ceased questioning his participation in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ activities in general, his initial failure to provide documentary support has influenced the State party’s assessment of his account as “vague”. When he submitted supporting documents at a later stage, the Migration Court refused to consider them and rejected his appeal for re-examination. 5.4 The State party refers to the fact that the complainant was not baptised as evidence against his genuine conversion. In reality, Jehovah’s Witnesses have strict requirements as to whom they baptise, and baptism is preceded by a period of rigorous studying. It is not uncommon to study the Bible for one or two years before qualifying for the status of unbaptized preacher. Several months more can pass before the person is baptised. The individual cannot arrange for the baptism. The State party showed a lack of knowledge about the specific procedures that Jehovah’s Witnesses follow. The domestic authorities’ assessment was therefore clearly arbitrary and amounted to a denial of justice. 10 In the Migration Court, the complainant confirmed that his conversion was in progress. He was baptised in October 2018. 5.5 The complainant submits that the State party attached little importance to his “participation in church activities” and did not distinguish proselytizing from any other activities. The fact that he is actively proselytizing from door to door was disregarded as being a mere modification of what had been stated previously and, as such, not meriting a reexamination. That ignorance with regard to the nature of the complainant’s religious activities raises questions about the State party’s claim that both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court had conducted thorough examinations of the complainant’s case. 5.6 The complainant contends that proselytizing is a highly visible activity, which, in a unique way, poses a personal, foreseeable and real risk to the complainant. For the past 18 months, since March 2018, the complainant has spent many hours each month in such proselytizing work, together with his fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 23 December 2019, the State party submitted additional observations indicating that the complainant’s comments did not contain any new information and maintaining the position that it had expressed in its original observations of 26 April 2018. 6.2 The State party takes note of the complainant’s claim that a thorough assessment of his alleged conversion to Christianity was not made. In that regard, the State party holds that the domestic authorities have thoroughly examined the complainant’s allegations and evidence regarding his alleged conversion, as well as the general situation of converts in Afghanistan. However, the authorities concluded that the complainant lacked credibility regarding the genuineness of his alleged conversion, and they held that there was no evidence 9 10 The statements referred to by the complainant include the following: “Violence and immoral valuations of people are the main reasons for your negative view of Islam.”; “You have said that you have visited Jehovah’s Witnesses in Sweden and that you have taken part in activities in that faith community. The biggest difference compared with Islam is that Christianity has a different view of morals and violence.”; “You have said that you like Jehovah’s Witnesses because that faith community advocates peace, calm, generosity and justice.” See G.K. v. Switzerland, (CAT/C/30/D/219/2002). 7