CCPR/C/131/D/3069/2017 hypervigilant.22 He bursts into tears without reason and has anxiety attacks. Nevertheless, those facts have never been considered by the migration authorities. 5.6 The author argues that as the State party itself stresses, considerable weight must be given to the competence of the Swedish authorities and that weight should be given to the conviction against the author’s father and the victimization of the author, which was disregarded in the asylum proceedings. The author contests the decision of the Migration Court which refused to consider the judgment by the district court of Ångermanland as a new circumstance in the second application for re-examination of his case.23 In that regard, the author submits that it is not unusual for a prison sentence for a parent who has assaulted his son not to contain information about the motive for the assault, and that this information should have been examined as a new circumstance in the author’s oral investigation, in order to assess if there was a connection between the author’s conversion and his father’s abuse. 5.7 The author emphasizes that although he lived in constant fear of his father, he still craved his father’s love as children do. Thus, the fact that he said in the introductory interview that he wanted to bring his parents to Sweden if he were given a residence permit cannot be seen as evidence that his father was not violent and cannot be given a higher value than his father’s prison sentence of four months in prison for having subjected the author to physical violence. The author reiterates that it would not be possible to assess the credibility or the sincerity of the belief without having interviewed the person, in particular to examine the psychological aspects of the conversion. He further notes that he should have at least been given the opportunity to answer to alleged deficiencies in credibility. 5.8 The author also adds that the State party failed to take protective measures towards him and his brother as victims of abuse, even though the case officer was informed that the father was physically abusing the author and his brother on 23 September 2016. This element was not considered a reason for protection and the author was forced to stay with his parents even after he reported their abuse to the police. 5.9 The author reiterates that in Afghanistan, the tradition is strictly patriarchal and revenge is seen as a virtue and an absolute duty. The fact that a father who has been sentenced to prison for assault on his own children absconds before the prison sentence is enforced must be seen as a warning signal. The author argues that considering all of those background elements, the State party has been particularly negligent in its obligation to protect human rights without discrimination, since it did not give the author the chance of an oral hearing to substantiate his allegations, nor weighed up the conviction of his father on a charge of child abuse and the threatening letter he left.24 5.10 The author also adds that he has no social network in Afghanistan other than his abusive parents, which makes him in need of protection. In particular as there is a concrete threat against him from his father. 25 The author also reiterates the severe human rights situation regarding the persecution and execution of Christian converts. The author adds that although the State party focuses on the security situation in the country, the risk he would face as an apostate is concrete and personal. 5.11 The author also confirms that he has not been sentenced to any crime, except for having smoked a hash cigarette, for which he paid a fine. The author notes that the fact that he was indicted for a minor drugs offence and that he was suspected of sexual molestation of a female employee at the migration boarding house are not relevant to his non-refoulement case. 5.12 In conclusion, the author contends that the State party continues to make general comments in relation to the provisions in the law without having assessed the actual circumstances of his case. The author emphasizes that although he is aware that the Committee is not a fourth instance that should examine the facts de novo, it is important to stress that the Swedish migration authorities have not acted in accordance with domestic law, nor with the country’s international human rights obligations. The burden of proof is a shared 22 23 24 25 8 It is a primary symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder. See para. 2.11. See article 13 and 24 (1) of the Convention read in conjunction with article 2 (1) of the Convention. From the information on file, it appears that the author has a grandfather in Afghanistan.