CCPR/C/131/D/3069/2017 nature, and that his claim regarding the examination of his conversion mainly reflects his disagreement with the factual conclusions drawn by the State party’s authorities about the credibility of those claims and do not demonstrate that their conclusions are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, or that the proceedings in question amounted to a procedural error or denial of justice. 9.7 In regard to the examination of the alleged abuse of and threat against the author, the Committee observes that the State party claims that the author was given the opportunity to substantiate his claims, both orally and in writing, before the Migration Board and in writing before the Migration Court during the ordinary asylum proceedings, while the author alleges that he was not given a chance to orally substantiate his allegations. 9.8 The Committee notes that in the asylum interview on 2 June 2016, the author did not inform the case officer that he had been abused by his father. However, the Committee also notes that even after the author’s brother informed the case officer on 23 September 2016 that his father had beaten him and his brother, on 1 February 2017 the Migration Court rejected the appeal of the author and his brother without examining in depth the risks associated with the threat related to the alleged abuse. The Migration Court in its decision of 9 August 2017 did not find that the criminal verdict against the author’s parents provided a reason to suppose that the author ran a serious risk (para. 2.11). The Committee also notes that there was no adequate examination of the alleged threats in the subsequent examination of his asylum claim, as the threatening letter he submitted was not considered by the Migration Board to have evidential value. 9.9 The Committee considers that regardless of the motive of abuse, the alleged abuse and its trauma, in combination with the vulnerability of the author stemming from both his youth and his migration history, could represent a serious risk to the author’s health and psychological and physical development. It was therefore incumbent upon the State party’s asylum authorities to conduct an in-depth examination of the abusive attitude of the parents, in particular since the allegations of abuse in Sweden had been reported to the relevant institutions in September 2016 and the author’s parents were convicted of assault on their children by the district court of Ångermanland in its judgment of 30 March 2017. 9.10 Furthermore, the author may face a real risk of irreparable harm if deported to Afghanistan, since his father, who may have returned there, has allegedly vowed to kill him to restore his lost honour, particularly in the context of Afghan society where it is reported that the restoration of honour often leads to revenge and blood feuds.36 In this connection, the Committee also notes that the author grew up in the Islamic Republic of Iran and does not have a social network or connections in Afghanistan, except for his grandfather. 9.11 The Committee considers that the risk that the author could face in Afghanistan is real and personal, as it emanates from his own family, rather than a general risk. The Committee concludes that the author could face serious adverse consequences in the country of origin that could put him at risk of irreparable harm. 9.12 In view of the above, the Committee considers that the State party failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to Afghanistan, in particular taking into account his father’s alleged threats of revenge and his trauma as a result of parental abuse. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the State party failed to give due consideration to the consequences of the author’s personal situation in Afghanistan and concludes that his removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Afghanistan would be a violation by the State party of his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, in which it is established that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an 36 12 See Country of Origin Information Centre (Landinfo), “Afghanistan: blood feuds, traditional law (pashtunwali) and traditional conflict resolution”.