CCPR/C/131/D/3069/2017 responsibility and while the onus is on the applicant to substantiate his claims, the authorities must provide him with the opportunity to do so orally. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 22 January 2020, the State party submitted its additional observations, stating that the author’s comments did not include any new elements in substance. The State party emphasizes that it fully maintains its position regarding the admissibility and merits of the present complaint as expressed in its previous observations of 11 June 2018. 6.2 Regarding the author’s claim that the domestic migration authorities were unwilling to provide the author with the opportunity to substantiate his claims of abuse by his parents, the State party reiterates that the author had several opportunities during the ordinary asylum proceedings to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claims and to argue his case, both orally and in writing, before the Swedish Migration Board and in writing before the Migration Court. However, the scope of assessment of the domestic migration authorities following an application for a new examination at the enforcement stage differs from the scope during the ordinary asylum proceedings. As the author’s newly cited circumstances were not deemed to meet the threshold to constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement, no further interview or hearing was held with the author by the domestic migration authorities. 6.3 The State party also contests the author’s claims that the migration authorities carelessly disregarded the new circumstances the author submitted. Regarding the letter from his father, the State party reiterates the assessment of the Migration Board that the information he provided in this regard was very brief, indistinct and vague for the purposes of a new examination under the relevant laws. Regarding the author’s allegation that the judgment of the district court of Ångermanland was not considered as a new circumstance by the Migration Court, the State party emphasizes that the Migration Court considered, as did the Board, that the alleged threat from the author’s father constituted a new circumstance within the meaning of the Aliens Act. However, the Court found that neither the letter nor the judgment was sufficient evidence for the cited circumstances to be assumed to constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement. The State party also emphasizes that on 7 July 2017, the Migration Board concluded that, given the intention of the author’s parents to leave the author with friends of theirs in Sweden, there were reasons to believe that the parents were deliberately hiding so that the author would once again be considered an unaccompanied minor.26 6.4 In regard to the author’s alleged conversion, the State party reiterates that the domestic authorities found that the author’s conversion was a new circumstance and the claim was duly examined. The State party holds that the author’s explanation for not raising his interest in Christianity at an earlier stage of the proceedings impacts his credibility negatively. Furthermore, the domestic authorities stress that there were no indications in the written evidence or otherwise to suggest that his father had abused him because he was interested in Christianity. The State party concludes that due to the lack of credibility, the author did not show that he had converted to Christianity out of a genuine and personal religious conviction and that he intended to live as a convert, risking attracting the interest of the Afghan authorities or individuals upon a forced return to Afghanistan, or that he had been ascribed any Christian beliefs. 6.5 The State party further submits that contrary to the author’s claim, it took several protection measures for the author.27 The State party also reiterates that as soon as the author’s brother reported their father’s abusive behaviour, the matter was reported to social services for their safety. 26 27 In this connection, the State party states that just before the family was about to go back to Afghanistan, the author’s public counsel, instructed by his parents, appealed against the decision of the Swedish Migration Board to expel the author and his brother. It follows from the appeal that the family was devastated when they were told that the Board would not allow the parents to travel to Afghanistan without the children. The State party provides some detailed facts in this regard. 9