CCPR/C/131/D/3069/2017 Author’s additional comments 7.1 On 25 May 2020, the author submitted additional comments, reiterating his previous claims. 7.2 The author submits that at the time of the ordinary asylum proceedings, when he was given a chance for an interview, he was still a minor and he was never given the opportunity to be heard at the enforcement stage, after the application of impediments to enforcement. The migration authorities are obliged to make an up-to-date risk assessment before expelling an asylum seeker. 7.3 The author also emphasizes that it is pure speculation that his parents were deliberately hiding so that he would be considered an unaccompanied minor. 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 State party challenges the admissibility of the communication for manifest lack of substantiation of the author’s claim under articles 6 and 7. However, the Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has adequately explained the reasons why he fears that his forcible return to Afghanistan would result in a risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible, insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 and 7, and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that if he were returned to Afghanistan, he would be exposed to a real risk of irreparable harm, in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. He contends that in Afghanistan he would face potentially life-threatening persecution because of his apostasy, which is allegedly known and has been publicized through some returnees apprised of his conversion from Islam to Christianity, as well as persecution from his father who vowed to avenge his tainted honour after the author reported him to the Swedish authorities for abuse, as documented in the threatening letter his father left him before leaving Sweden. The Committee also notes his allegation that the risk of persecution would be aggravated by factors of vulnerability such as the fact that he belongs to the Hazara ethnic minority group and that he has never lived in Afghanistan and thus has no knowledge of the country or the language and no social network beyond his abusive parents. 9.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004), in which it referred to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (para. 12). 10