CAT/C/60/D/677/2015 As to the timing of his conversion, he claims that he was baptized on 30 November 2013, namely, five months before the adoption of the final decision of the Migration Court ordering his expulsion. The first opportunity he had to inform the Swedish authorities about his conversion was through his submission of 22 January 2014. Finally, the complainant asserts that the argument by Swedish authorities that the complainant’s conversion has not been brought to the attention of the Afghan authorities is not well-founded. He notes that he was held with other Afghans who have subsequently been returned to Afghanistan. Since a conversion is a major event in Afghan culture, a rumour is likely to spread. 5.3 As to the complainant’s activities in Afghanistan, he notes that he was very young when he was offered the job of distributing biblical material, and he had only attended school for two years. He had thought that the activity would go unnoticed, even though it was contrary to Islam. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In its submission dated 7 March 2016, the State party challenged the assertion that the complainant’s conversion was enough to entail a risk of death upon his return without needing to determine the genuineness of his conversion. The State party notes that the question of determining whether the complainant’s conversion is based on a genuine religious conviction is linked to the assessment of his intention of living in Afghanistan as a convert. In this regard, the complainant has failed to establish that he has the intention of living as a convert in Afghanistan or that his religious activities in Sweden have come to the attention of the Afghan authorities. 6.2 The State party notes that the complainant has not substantiated the assertion that domestic proceedings were flawed in such a manner that it could have affected the assessment of his need for protection. On the contrary, his claims were thoroughly examined. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that the State party has not contested that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case and concludes that this requirement has been met. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the fact that the State party questions the complainant’s credibility concerning his activities in Afghanistan, as well as the genuineness of his conversion to Christianity while in Sweden, and the fact that the State party argues that the complaint is insufficiently substantiated and therefore inadmissible. 7.4 The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that he would face a risk of torture or death if returned to Afghanistan based on his conversion to Christianity in November 2013. The complainant has also challenged the assessment by Swedish authorities of the genuine nature of his conversion, and the relevance of such assessment for determining the risk of an article 3 violation. The Committee observes, however, that the complainant’s grounds for seeking asylum were initially based on his past activities in Afghanistan, namely distributing biblical material, and that his conversion to Christianity was only raised before Swedish authorities in January 2014. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that determining the genuine nature of the complainant’s conversion was necessary to determine the complainant’s intention of living in Afghanistan as a convert, and therefore, the risk of persecution upon return. That determination was particularly relevant in the light of the circumstances in which the conversion occurred, namely, in the context of asylum proceedings. 5