CCPR/C/128/D/3032/2017 of the situation in Afghanistan in recent times.11 However, on the basis of the information in the case file, the Committee is not in a position to assess the extent to which the current situation in his country of origin may impact the author’s personal risk. In this context, the Committee recalls that it remains the responsibility of the State party to continuously assess the risk that any individual would face in case of return to another country before the State takes any final action regarding his or her deportation or removal. 7.9 While not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, and without prejudice to the continuing responsibility of the State party to take into account the present situation of the country to which the author would be deported, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the author have not adduced sufficient grounds for demonstrating that he would face a real and personal risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant if returned to Afghanistan. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s forcible return to Afghanistan would not be a violation by the State party of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 11 10 See, e.g., Samuel Hall, Norwegian Refugee Council and Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Escaping War: Where to Next? A Research Study on the Challenges of IDP Protection in Afghanistan (Oslo, 2018).