CCPR/C/121/D/2594/2015 Covenant based on K.S.’s religious disaffiliation, on M.S.’s health condition and on the general conditions for Afghan returnees in the country of origin. 6.4 The Committee notes K.S.’s arguments that he would face persecution in Afghanistan because atheism is equated with apostasy, which may entail death for those who choose not to recant. The State party has stated that K.S.’s allegations regarding a fear of religious persecution were assessed by the Refugee Appeals Board but found not credible owing to the author’s low profile, as he had not actively participated in any public debate other than sharing a few Facebook posts, which had gathered very limited attention. Also, the author had only raised his fear of persecution relating to his agnostic persuasion on 17 November 2014, when he requested that his asylum proceedings be reopened. The Committee notes, in that regard, that while the author had stated that he was a non-believer at his interviews with the Danish Immigration Service and at the hearing before the Board, he had failed to allege a fear of persecution on the basis of his religious disbeliefs. It also notes that the author, who presents himself as an agnostic and not an atheist, bases his fear of a violation of his rights under article 7 on the general situation for atheists in Afghanistan, without relating the situation to his personal context and, in particular, to his lack of antireligious activism either in Afghanistan or in Denmark. The Committee therefore considers that the author K.S. has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim of a risk of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant based on his agnostic convictions, and declares that part of the communication inadmissible in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee notes the authors’ allegations made on the basis of the general situation of Afghan returnees, including the security situation and the lack of basic services. However, it considers that those allegations are general in nature and do not establish a personal risk under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee is also aware of reports about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. The obligation not to remove an individual contrary to a State party’s obligations under the Covenant applies at the time of removal. The Committee recalls that, in cases of imminent deportation, the material point in time for assessing the issue must be that of its own consideration of the case. Accordingly, in the context of the communications procedure under the Optional Protocol, in assessing the facts submitted to its consideration by the parties, the Committee must also take into account new developments brought to its attention by the parties that might have an impact on the risks that an author subject to removal could face. In the present case, the information in the public domain has signalled a significant deterioration in the situation in Kabul in recent times.17 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 changed situation in their country of origin may impact the authors’ personal risk. In this context, the Committee recalls that it remains the responsibility of the State party to assess continuously the risk that any person would face in case of return to another country before the State takes any final action regarding his or her deportation or removal. 18 6.6 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, and based on the information provided by the parties, the Committee considers this part of the communication to be insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 The Committee notes, however, that the authors’ allegations regarding the risk of a violation of article 7 on the basis of M.S.’s health condition have been sufficiently substantiated, are intimately linked to the merits and should be considered at that stage. 6.8 The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant with regard to M.S.’s health condition and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. 17 18 See, for example, www.un.org/victimsofterrorism/en/node/3466; and Amnesty International, Forced back to danger: asylum seekers returned from Europe to Afghanistan (London, October 2017). See communication No. 2625/2015, S.Z. v. Denmark, adopted on 28 July 2016, para. 7.9. 7