CAT/C/78/D/1047/2021 rights abuses and torture by members of the Taliban are commonly reported. Contrary to what the State party holds in the present case, the evidence is therefore to be considered as substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would run a real risk of being exposed to treatment contrary to article 3, in line with the European Court’s assessment in R.C. v Sweden. The fact that the Migration Court found some aspects to be uncertain cannot undermine the overall credibility of his story. The fact that the complainant has given reliable information concerning abuse and related mental health problems is also a risk-enhancing factor that the authorities have failed to sufficiently take into account. 5.13 The State party has claimed that the certificate from a psychologist/psychotherapist, dated 5 December 2020, constitutes new evidence that was not invoked during the domestic proceedings and, as such, should not be taken into account. However, as explained in the complaint, all domestic remedies concerning this certificate have been exhausted as there is no possibility for the complainant to receive a new examination on the merits on the basis of the certificate. As the Committee is aware, the State party’s authorities would dismiss the certificate as a modification and addition to the previous applications. Against this background, the Committee should take the complainant’s stated health problems and corroborating evidence, such as the certificate, into account. 5.14 Furthermore, the aim of article 3 (2) of the Convention is to ascertain the fact that the complainant would personally run a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in Afghanistan. This criterion is fulfilled in the present case. The complainant has submitted a considerable amount of corroborating evidence in support of his claims. That evidence, which has not been examined by the State party’s authorities, includes several testimonies as to the complainant’s faith from pastors, church leaders and Christian friends; baptism certificates; and photos of the complainant participating in church activities. 5.15 As regards the general decision on the suspension of removals to Afghanistan by the Migration Agency due to the prevailing security situation in the country, the complainant notes that the decision could be lifted at any time and his expulsion carried out. He also agrees with the State party’s request that the Committee consider the present communication before the decision to expel the complainant becomes statute-barred on 1 July 2024. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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. 6.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any complaint from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) of the Convention. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible due to a lack of sufficient substantiation. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant have been sufficiently substantiated, in particular the allegation that he is at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention, if returned to Afghanistan, considering both the general situation for converts in his country of origin and the individual situation of the complainant, who suffered captivity and abuse in the past. As regards the complainant’s allegations under article 16, the Committee considers that those assertions do not raise separate issues from the claims raised under article 3 of the Convention; therefore, the claims under article 16 will not be considered separately. The Committee declares the claims under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. GE.23-24373 11