CCPR/C/131/D/3069/2017 anyone else’s awareness of his baptism in Sweden, or that he in some other way risks being ascribed a religious view. 4.10 The State party also notes that the author never mentioned, either in his initial asylum application in Sweden or later during the domestic re-examination of his case, that he had been subjected to beatings as a punishment for being critical against Islam or that he had had any connections to Christianity while in the Islamic Republic of Iran. These are new claims submitted before the Committee and were not made before the domestic migration authorities. The State party thus strongly questions the veracity of these claims. 4.11 The State party also adds some facts: that on 25 August 2017, the Migration Board was informed by the district court of Ångermanland that the author had been detained, as he was suspected of molestation and attempted manslaughter. On 18 September 2017, the Board was further informed that the author had been released from detention. He had also been suspected of sexual molestation of a female employee at the migration boarding house and of using drugs, which was reported from the migration boarding house to the social welfare committee in several notifications. 4.12 The State party holds that the author’s account and the facts he relied on are insufficient to conclude that the alleged risk of ill-treatment on his return to Afghanistan meets the requirements of being a foreseeable, real and personal risk. Consequently, it concludes that enforcement of the expulsion order would not, under the present circumstances, constitute a violation of the obligations of Sweden under articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 29 October 2018, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. 5.2 Regarding the admissibility of the case, the author confirms that the same matter is not being examined nor has been examined under another procedure of international investigation. The author also contends that given what was set out in his initial submission and the present comments, his claims are substantiated enough for the purpose of admissibility. 5.3 As for the merits of the case, the author argues that it is not sufficient that the Aliens Act reflects the same principles as those laid down in article 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant for these rights to be exercised in practice and not to be just an abstract principle. 5.4 The author contests the State party’s allegation that the author’s case was “thoroughly” examined by the national migration authorities, given that he was interviewed only once in June 2016. Contrary to the State party’s observations, the author’s allegations on the conversion and the threats from his father have never been heard in oral interviews or investigated by any authorities, despite the author’s request to be heard in an oral procedure. The author states that he has never been given a proper chance to substantiate his claims with a case officer at the Migration Board without his parents being present.21 5.5 In that connection, the author contests the State party’s allegation that he lacks a valid excuse for having waited several months after his father left before he told the authorities about his conversion. He alleges that the authorities showed a total lack of consideration of the impact of abuse by caregivers and trauma on a young person. The district court of Ångermanland established that his father regularly resorted to severe acts of violence against the children, which indicates his past abuse in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The author has thus lived in constant fear and trauma, which was exacerbated after he came to Sweden. He also emphasizes that he shows the typical attitudes of persons who have suffered from repeated physical violence and abuse. He has tremors and hyperarousal, being constantly 21 The author reiterates that all decisions were solely based on his interview in 2016 and interviews with his parents. He states that he has not been heard since the first impediment of enforcement was lodged. 7