CAT/C/78/D/1047/2021 Christian conviction and thus that he intended to live as a Christian convert upon a return to Afghanistan”. The Migration Agency never heard the complainant’s conversion story orally, as this was heard only in the Migration Court. Against this background and considering that an oral hearing is essential for the investigation of an individual’s genuine conversion, it was not possible for the Agency to make such a claim. The claim hence shows that the Agency had a preconceived position before the court hearing was even held, as written submissions are normally made before the oral hearing. This fact shows even more clearly in that no open investigation was held in the Court and the Migration Agency acted only as a counterparty, lacking objectivity. 5.10 Moreover, the State party has asserted that the complainant’s case could be distinguished from the Human Rights Committee’s decision in Q.A. v. Sweden. 26 The complainant has, however, never claimed that the cases are identical. The cases have similarities, as also noted by the State party. The Human Rights Committee concluded that, owing to the complainant’s intersecting forms of vulnerability, combined with the multiple risk-enhancing factors, he would face serious adverse consequences in the country of origin, which would put him at risk of irreparable harm. Similarly, the complainant has a multifaceted vulnerability profile. He was subjected to abuse in his home country and has suffered both mental and physical illness. The State party has failed to adequately assess and take these factors into account. The complainant also notes that the Committee recently adopted a decision in the similar case of A.A. v. Sweden.27 The Committee, in a similar way, found that the Swedish asylum authorities had failed to sufficiently assess the different risk-enhancing factors and supporting evidence of the complainant. It had also failed to make an individualized assessment of such factors as the young age and mental health of the complainant. 5.11 Regarding the acts of torture suffered previously by the complainant, he stated to the Migration Court that he had been exposed to the bacha bazi custom in Afghanistan and also to torture. Despite this, the Migration Court did not request any torture investigation or refer the case back to the Migration Agency for further investigation. The State party holds that the present case is clearly distinguishable from R.C. v. Sweden and notes that neither the Migration Agency nor the Migration Court found that the complainant had made a prima facie case as to the underlying threat to him and the origin of the abuse that he suffered. However, the European Court of Human Rights states that, owing to the special situation in which asylum-seekers often find themselves, it is frequently necessary to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to assessing the credibility of their statements and the documents submitted in support thereof.28 The European Court holds that, in principle, the complainant has to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure complained of were to be implemented, he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. Some uncertain aspects do not undermine the overall credibility of the story. Where such evidence is adduced, it is for the State party to dispel any doubts about it. 29 5.12 In the present case, the complainant has provided a certificate from a psychologist/psychotherapist stating that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder due to the abuse he suffered during his childhood. Both the Migration Agency and the Migration Court found that the complainant had provided reliable information regarding his captivity and abuse. As explained in the initial complaint, the migration authorities required that the complainant provide evidence that the abuse was perpetrated by members of the Taliban, which is obviously impossible for the complainant to provide. He explained that he could tell that the abusers were members of the Taliban by their clothes and appearance and the fact that they were members of the Taliban would have been evident to anyone living in Afghanistan. Considering that the complainant’s story was found reliable in relation to the abuse, he should have been granted the benefit of the doubt. The complainant notes that the State party has not made any clear statement in this regard. Moreover, it is also evident from the country of origin information on Afghanistan presented in the complaint that grave human 26 27 28 29 10 Human Rights Committee, Q.A. v. Sweden, para. 9.7. A.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/72/D/918/2019). European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden, para. 50. Ibid., paras. 50 and 52. GE.23-24373