CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017 was an atheist therefore did not constitute new circumstances that could be assumed to constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement within the meaning of chapter 12, sections 1, 2 or 3, of the Aliens Act or to constitute grounds for a re-examination of the matter of a residence permit. In addition, the State party reiterates that the Migration Court found that the author had not demonstrated that he had a valid reason for not citing those circumstances until then. The State party argues that, contrary to what the author claims, he did receive a full assessment of his claims for asylum, with a thorough examination at both the Migration Board and the Migration Court of Sweden. 6.5 The State party refers to the legal position paper regarding country of origin information on Afghanistan issued by the Migration Board of Sweden on 24 January 2019. In the paper, the Board admitted that a deterioration of the security situation could constitute new circumstances under chapter 12, section 19, of the Aliens Act that could be assumed to constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement of an expulsion order within the meaning of chapter 12, sections 1, 2 or 3, of the Aliens Act, thereby justifying a new examination of the matter of a residence permit. However, the State party alleges that the security situation varies greatly both within and among the provinces of Afghanistan and that an individual assessment of an author’s vulnerability and personal circumstances must be made. In that context, the State party alleges that the above-mentioned information is a general recommendation on the application of laws and regulations within the Board’s mandate, developed for the purpose of achieving a uniform application by the Board of the applicable laws. 6.6 In the light of the preceding arguments, the State party maintains its position that there is no reason to conclude that the rulings by the domestic authorities were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice in finding that the author’s account of his atheism, as presented during the national asylum proceedings, was insufficient to lead the domestic authorities to conclude that the alleged risk of ill-treatment upon his return to Afghanistan met the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. 34 Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7. On 25 September 2019, the author submitted a reply to the State party’s additional observations, reiterating his previous comments. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, decide whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee notes that the author invokes article 18 of the Covenant without advancing any arguments specified to support that claim. Therefore, the Committee considers that that part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes 34 applicant’s conversion in the reopening proceedings was not considered new circumstances that could justify a re-examination of his case due to its genuineness (F.G. v. Sweden, para. 155). In that regard, the Government again reiterates that the Committee is not a court of fourth instance that should re-evaluate facts and evidence de novo (see the dissenting opinions in Shakeel v. Canada). 11