CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015 Immigration Service and the Board because he had failed to establish that he would face any risk to his life or be subjected to torture if returned to Afghanistan. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that, during his asylum proceedings, the author made several contradictory and unlikely statements, and that it was difficult for him to provide clear information relating to essential points of his account, including the period during which he was abducted; the period during which he stayed with his parents after the abduction, and later with his grandparents; and the moment when his family was asked about his whereabouts by the Taliban. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the author has not provided any reasonable explanation regarding such inconsistencies. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s affirmation that the author’s account is not consistent with the background material available, according to which the Taliban do not recruit suicide bombers by force. The Committee further notes the State party’s statement that, according to the background information available at the moment the decision on his asylum application was taken, the author did not fall within any of the categories identified by UNHCR as being at risk in Afghanistan, as he originates from an area controlled by the Government, has never been politically active and has never had any problems with the authorities. In addition, the Committee notes the State party’s statement that the fact that the author is a Tajik does not justify asylum, as according to the background information available when the Board’s decision was made, minorities are at risk only in those areas where anti-government elements are in control, not in areas where, as in Kabul, the Afghan Government is in control. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s affirmation that, according to background material available at the time the decision on the author’s application was taken, the general situation in Afghanistan could not, by itself, be considered as a basis for granting asylum and that the Afghan authorities had agreed to receive the author. 7.8 The Committee also notes the author’s allegation that the current situation in Afghanistan is very dangerous and could constitute a basis for granting asylum to persons who, as he does, belong to a minority and have spent some time in the West, and might therefore be perceived by the Taliban as supporting the Government and the international community. The Committee further takes note of the author’s claim that, although the majority of suicide bombers join the Taliban voluntarily, it is possible that young boys such as the author may be recruited by force. The Committee also notes the author’s submission that, given the poor security situation in the country, the Afghan Government is advising States not to return Afghan nationals to the country. The Committee observes, however, that the author is from Kabul; that, according to the statement made by the Afghan Minister on Refugees and Repatriation and quoted by the author, Kabul remains a safe area; and that publicly available information indicates that persons from places where the antigovernment elements do not exercise control, such as Kabul, are not at risk of persecution by the Taliban.40 7.9 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 this 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 may have an impact on the risks that an author subject to removal may face. In the present case, the information in the public domain has signalled a significant deterioration of the situation in Kabul in recent times. 41 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 his country of origin may impact the author’s personal risk. In this context, the Committee recalls that it remains the responsibility of the 40 41 10 See, for example, UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines (2013); Independent Advisory Group on Country Information, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Country Policy and Information Note Afghanistan: Fear of Anti-Government Elements (AGEs) (December 2016); Danish Immigration Service, Country of Origin Information. See for example, United Nations, “UN condemns terrorist attack in Kabul, underscores need to protect civilians”, 31 May 2017. Available from www.un.org/victimsofterrorism/en/node/3466.