CAT/C/78/D/1047/2021 underlying threat to the complainant was based on secondary information whose accuracy, due to its nature, could not be verified. This information was also considered scant and very vague. The domestic authorities must hence be considered to have fulfilled their duty to ascertain all the relevant facts in this regard. 4.16 The complainant has attached to his complaint to the Committee a certificate by a psychologist/psychotherapist. The State party notes that, as the complainant states, the certificate, dated 5 December 2020, constitutes new evidence that was not invoked during the domestic proceedings. As mentioned above, the State party limits its observations to the assessments made during the national asylum proceedings and whether the rulings were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. However, the State party emphasizes that one of the main considerations in the enforcement of an expulsion order in cases in which the returnee suffers from ill-health is to see that his or her state of health will not deteriorate as a consequence of such enforcement. In the light of the above, the State party holds that there is no support for the assertion that the domestic rulings in the complainant’s case were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 4.17 The State party reiterates that, due to the prevailing security situation in Afghanistan, the Migration Agency has suspended all enforcement of deportation orders to Afghanistan until further notice. Consequently, the complainant is not at risk of expulsion. The State party would inform the Committee regarding any developments concerning the domestic migration authorities’ assessment of the human rights and security situation in Afghanistan, with implications for the complainant and invites the Committee to await the ongoing re-evaluation of the situation. The State party concludes that the complainant’s case does not reveal any violation of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 5 January 2022, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. 5.2 The complainant holds that, contrary to the State party’s observations, the communication is admissible under article 22 (2), as his assertions achieve the minimum level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. He notes that the State party does not contest the complainant’s claim that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and that domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case. 5.3 The complainant contests the State party’s assertion that he is not at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention if returned to Afghanistan and that his claims fail to rise to the minimum level of substantiation for purposes of admissibility. Attention is drawn to the fact that, as former Muslim who has converted to Christianity, he will face serious consequences as an apostate in Afghanistan.23 In addition, the complainant lacks an adequate social network in Afghanistan and would be seen as an apostate by his family, his compatriots and the authorities. He was previously subjected to persecution in Afghanistan, which has not been questioned by the State party’s asylum authorities. The complainant would be a target for all kinds of exploitation, violence and abuse. Given his distressing situation, the Committee should take all circumstances and risk-enhancing factors into consideration when making an overall assessment of the complainant’s need for protection. The complainant has sufficiently asserted the fact 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 home country and the complainant’s individual situation. 5.4 Concerning the merits, the complainant maintains that the communication reveals a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as stated in the complaint and the following comments. The State party, by not granting him asylum due to his need for protection, has violated the Convention. Since the complainant has converted from Islam to Christianity, 23 8 In Afghanistan, less than 0.3 per cent of the population confess to holding a different belief than Islam. GE.23-24373