CAT/C/71/D/908/2019
degrading treatment, and torture, including the death penalty. 3 The complainant notes that
Islamic law and doctrine is dominant in the Afghan judicial system, where apostasy –
renouncing Islam in favour of other religions or atheism – is often seen as a hudud crime,
which are the most serious crimes according to Islamic law and punishable by death.4 He also
asserts that converts can be threatened or even killed by their families and other individuals
who see conversion as shameful in society. Converts and individuals leaving Islam face major
risks, while the Afghan authorities lack resources to protect them.5 He refers to the fact that
acts of violence by neighbours and friends against Christian converts are common in
Afghanistan, often forcing converts to leave the country.6 He contends that his conversion is
known among his friends, family and relatives in Afghanistan, as he has been an active
Christian and openly shared his faith with Afghan friends, in churches and on social media.
3.2
The complainant also claims that he has not been given a proper and adequate
examination of his asylum case regarding his conversion from Islam to Christianity. He
argues that it is a procedural deficiency that his claim of conversion as a protection ground
for asylum was examined in substance in only one legal instance, as the Migration Court
decided not to refer the case back to the Swedish Migration Agency for further examination
and the Supreme Court did not allow leave to appeal. Although the complainant filed for
suspension of the decision of the Migration Court, the complainant’s conversion to
Christianity was not taken into consideration, as it was not considered and examined as a new
circumstance revealed after the Migration Court’s decision.
3.3
The complainant also alleges systemic deficiencies in the assessment of conversion in
the asylum application process in Sweden, depending disproportionately on the ability of the
asylum seeker concerned to express himself or herself verbally. 7 In the complainant’s case,
the examination is highly dependent on the one oral hearing in the Migration Court; other
evidence, including certificates by church leaders, was not properly weighed in the
assessment.8 The complainant also claims that the Swedish authorities failed to understand
the threats posed by social media, through which his conversion will be known by people in
Afghanistan, which would make it more dangerous for him to return there.
3.4
The complainant states that he exhausted all domestic remedies. The communication
has also not been submitted to any other international complaint mechanism.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 12 July 2019, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and
the merits of the communication. It submits that the communication should be declared
inadmissible for failure to substantiate the claims, pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention
and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, as the complainant’s assertion that
3
4
5
6
7
8
The complainant alleges that country information shows a risk of serious persecution against
Christian converts in Afghanistan. He also invokes the European Court of Human Rights cases F.G.
v. Sweden (application No. 43611/11), Germany v. Y (case C-71/11) and Germany v. Z (case C99/11), in which the Court found that the right to manifest one’s faith openly must be taken into
consideration when there is a risk of torture or the death penalty. In addition, the European Court of
Justice has established that past persecution or threat of persecution is a serious indication of wellfounded fear.
Swedish Migration Board, country-of-origin information on Afghanistan.
He refers to a report by the organization Open Doors, which states that Afghanistan is ranked as the
second most dangerous country in the world for Christian converts, who are considered
psychologically and mentally weak, and that those who refuse to return to Islam have been put in
mental institutions in some cases.
Swedish Migration Board, country-of-origin information on Afghanistan.
The complainant submits that there are a number of systematic deficiencies in the examination of
converts by Swedish authorities, which have been strongly criticized as being unfair and arbitrary by,
among others, the Swedish Council of Christians, which represents almost all denominations of the
Christian Church in Sweden.
The complainant submits the certificate by religious leaders to attest to his genuine conversion and
faith in Christianity. The complainant alleges that the examination is against the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines. See UNHCR, “Guidelines on
international protection: religion-based refugee claims under article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention
and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees” (HCR/GIP/04/06), para. 27.
3