CAT/C/78/D/1047/2021 4.7 On the merits, the complainant claims that the enforcement of the expulsion order against him and his removal to Afghanistan would violate articles 3 and 16 of the Convention, as upon his return he risks being subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 4.8 The fact that the Migration Agency has suspended all enforcement of deportation orders to Afghanistan shows that the Swedish authorities closely follow the developments in countries of origin to avoid treatment in violation of the State party’s obligations under human rights law. In view of the above, the complainant has the right to remain in Sweden until further notice. However, no new national process has been initiated so far on the issue of residence permits that would apply to the complainant’s case and the Migration Agency has introduced a decision-making halt in cases relating to Afghanistan. The State party will inform the Committee of any developments in this regard. Accordingly, the State party limits its observations to the assessments made during the domestic proceedings and whether the rulings were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 4.9 As regards the assessments made by the national asylum authorities, the Migration Agency held an introductory interview with the complainant on 16 December 2015, the day that he applied for asylum. On 2 October 2017 an asylum investigation, which lasted for over three hours, was held with the complainant. A complementary investigation, lasting over one hour, was held on 16 November 2017. During the interview and the investigations, an interpreter was present whom the complainant confirmed he understood. The investigations were furthermore held in the presence of the complainant’s public counsel to whom the minutes from the interview and the investigations were communicated. Upon the complainant’s appeal to the Migration Court, the Court held an oral hearing with the complainant for over two hours, in the presence of his public counsel and an interpreter. During the oral hearing, a witness was heard upon the request of the complainant. Through his public counsel, the complainant was invited during the domestic proceedings to review and submit written observations on the minutes from the asylum investigations and to provide written submissions and appeals to supplement the oral investigations. The complainant had sufficient opportunity to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his original asylum claim and to argue his case, orally and in writing. The State party holds that the Migration Agency and the Migration Court have had sufficient information, including facts and documentation, to ensure the production of a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment concerning the complainant’s claim for international protection. 4.10 Before the Committee, the complainant claims that he was not given a thorough investigation of his cited conversion, as the Migration Court did not refer the case back to the Migration Agency. He further claims that the appeal of the Migration Court’s judgment as concerns his cited conversion did not constitute a real and effective legal remedy since the Migration Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal only in cases in which there is a need for legal guidance. It is a well-established principle in domestic case law that aliens have the right to have all the circumstances invoked in support of their application for a residence permit, which are assessed during the same proceedings regardless of the grounds on which a right to such a permit is claimed, before a final and non-appealable decision is issued. 4.11 In the circumstances of the complainant’s case, where new grounds for protection are cited in connection with the appeal of the Migration Agency’s decision, the Migration Court of Appeal has stated that the Migration Court has a responsibility to ensure that the new grounds are sufficiently investigated before it rules on the question of a residence permit. The Migration Court has undertaken relevant investigations, including by holding an oral hearing where the complainant was given the opportunity to talk about his claimed conversion and, on the basis of his request, by hearing a witness on this matter. As regards the cited conversion, the Migration Agency held, in a submission to the Migration Court, that the complainant could not be considered to have plausibly demonstrated that he had converted on account of a genuine Christian conviction and thus that he intended to live as a Christian convert if returned to Afghanistan. The Migration Court came to the same conclusion in its judgment. The Court also noted that there were no indications that the complainant’s conversion had become known to anyone in Afghanistan. 4.12 In his complaint before the Committee, the complainant refers to the Views of the Human Rights Committee in Q.A. v. Sweden. The similarities between the two complaints 6 GE.23-24373