CAT/C/78/D/1047/2021 reprisals. Their church is clandestine and they meet at home in very small groups.14 Apostasy is often punished with death after the court has given the defendant a period of time for reflection. 15 Apostates risk being denounced by their families. It is even possible for the person considered to be an apostate to be murdered without the case being investigated or judged by a court. 16 Several sources point out that the main threat to an “infidel” is not primarily the Afghan authorities but the family of the person concerned or other individuals in the community.17 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 6 September 2021, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits, recalling the main facts of the case and the complainant’s claims before the Committee. The State party argues that the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. As to the merits, it asserts that the present communication reveals no violation of the Convention. 4.2 The State party notes that the complainant’s case was assessed under the 2005 Swedish Aliens Act, which entered into force on 31 March 2006, and the Act temporarily restricting the possibility of obtaining residence permits in Sweden, which entered into force on 20 July 2016. 4.3 As to the facts of the case, the State party refers to the translated summaries of the facts in the Swedish Migration Agency’s decision of 7 August 2018 and the Migration Court’s judgment of 26 May 2020.18 According to the reasoning of the national authorities, the complainant has not shown that he would personally face a real risk of being subjected to the kind of treatment upon his return to Afghanistan that would make his expulsion from Sweden amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, he can be expelled to Afghanistan. 4.4 The complainant applied for asylum in Sweden on 16 December 2015. The Migration Agency rejected his application and decided, on 7 August 2018, to expel him to Afghanistan. The decision was appealed to the Migration Court of Appeal, which rejected the appeal on 26 May 2020. On 1 July 2020, the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and the decision to expel the complainant became final and non-appealable. The Committee’s attention is drawn to the fact that the decision to expel the complainant will become statute-barred on 1 July 2024. 4.5 The State party informed the Committee of a recent general decision by the Migration Agency that affects the present case. Due to the prevailing security situation in Afghanistan, the Migration Agency decided on 16 July 2021 to suspend all enforcement of deportation orders to Afghanistan. It means that no one under a deportation order to Afghanistan will be returned to the country, in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement, until further notice.19 4.6 As concerns admissibility, the State party does not contest the fact that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case. In addition, the State party is not aware of the present matter having been or being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 14 15 16 17 18 19 GE.23-24373 Ibid. Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., p. 17. Ibid., p. 18. The decision and judgment were provided. In a position paper, dated 16 July 2021, the Migration Agency noted that the security situation in Afghanistan was very worrying and also difficult to assess because of a widespread lack of reporting. The Agency held that the rapid increase in territorial control in the country by the Taliban subsequent to 1 May 2021 could lead to profound and long-lasting changes in the country’s political, military and humanitarian conditions. Furthermore, the Agency deemed that it was not possible to assess with certainty how the conflict would develop. Against this backdrop, the Agency concluded that it would closely follow the developments in Afghanistan and await further country of origin information before a new assessment was made. 5