CAT/C/78/D/1047/2021 there is a substantial risk that he would be subjected to persecution if he were to be returned to Afghanistan. The complainant adds that there were several deficiencies in the domestic proceedings. 5.5 The complainant is aware that the Committee is not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body and that the Committee attributes considerable weight to the assessments made by the authorities. However, he argues that the Committee is not bound by such findings24 and that it has the power to freely assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case.25 In this case, the facts and evidence have not been adequately assessed by the national authorities, which is why the asylum procedure amounts to a denial of justice. 5.6 The complainant does not contest that the domestic migration authorities are in a good position to assess information submitted by an asylum-seeker and to appraise the credibility of his or her statements and claims. As regards the State party’s explanation of its current policies concerning citizens of Afghanistan, it is correct that, due to the security situation, the enforcement of deportations to Afghanistan is suspended. While the complainant trusts that his deportation will not be enforced for the time being, he points to the final decision from the migration authorities concerning his deportation. He requests the Committee to thoroughly examine the State party’s decision on his expulsion. 5.7 As regards his conversion, the complainant contests the misleading statement from the State party that the migration authorities conducted thorough examinations of the complainant’s case. The complainant’s conversion to Christianity has not been given a sufficient and in-depth investigation, and the decision has de facto not been appealable since the case was not remanded to the Migration Agency, leaving the complainant with no real and effective remedy. The complainant, as a former Muslim who has converted to Christianity, will face serious consequences as an apostate in Afghanistan. As concerns the length of the asylum interviews, as pointed out in the initial complaint, the complainant argues that, at the time that they were conducted, he had not yet converted to Christianity. He also notes that less than half of the interview time was de facto used by the applicant due to time spent on interpretation and obligatory information from the case officer. 5.8 As regards the State party’s contention that the Migration Court held an oral hearing of over two hours with the complainant in the presence of his public counsel and an interpreter and that a witness was heard, upon the request of the complainant, during an oral hearing, the complainant finds this misleading. Due to formal information before the Court and the need for interpretation, less than an hour is typically left to hear the complainant and a witness. Approximately half of this time is used by the Migration Agency to pose questions. However, the Agency’s questioning is rarely held as an open and objective investigation and the Migration Agency acts as counterparty and normally uses the time to find errors and weaknesses in the complainant’s story and statements. Against this background, in the case of the complainant, there was little time for him to describe his inner thoughts and beliefs in relation to his conversion, which is required according to national case law. The lack of referral to the Migration Agency was a serious procedural deficiency and gave the complainant no chance to clarify the reasons for his conversion and what his newly found faith meant to him. When new grounds for protection are cited in connection with an appeal of the Migration Agency’s decision, it is possible for the Migration Court to refer the case back to the Agency. The referral is regularly done in cases similar to that of the complainant. In his case, the Migration Court’s negative decision, which was based predominantly on the perceived credibility of the complainant’s statements and found no need to refer the case, appears arbitrary. The complainant emphasizes that, when the Migration Court’s investigative measures cannot be considered sufficient, it should be the Court’s obligation to refer the case to the Migration Agency for further investigation. 5.9 Furthermore, the complainant rebuts the State party’s claim that 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 24 25 GE.23-24373 G.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/30/D/219/2002), para. 6.12. X v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/470/2011), para. 7.3. 9