CRPD/C/25/D/58/2019
procedure, contrary to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered
into force for the State party on 14 January 2009. The author is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 30 April 2019, the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, acting on behalf of the Committee, issued a request for interim measures under
article 4 of the Optional Protocol, requesting that the State party refrain from deporting the
author to Afghanistan pending the examination of the communication by the Committee.
1.3
On 7 October 2019, the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, acting on behalf of the Committee, denied the State party’s request to examine the
admissibility of the complaint separately from its merits under rule 70 (8) of its rules of
procedure.
A.
Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author applied for asylum in Sweden on 29 December 2008. In the course of this
procedure, he informed the asylum authorities that he had been held responsible for the death
of the son of a powerful man in his village. Fearing that that could lead to a vendetta, he had
fled Afghanistan on an unspecified date. He claimed that upon his return to Afghanistan, he
would risk being persecuted or killed as a result of past events and also on the grounds of his
Hazara ethnicity and Shia Muslim religion, which expose him to a greater risk of illtreatment.1 His asylum claim was dismissed in all instances on the basis that his accounts
were not found to be credible by the national authorities. However, the expulsion order
against him was not enforced in due time and became statute-barred on 13 September 2015.
2.2
On 17 September 2015, the author submitted a renewed application for asylum,
claiming that he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder with psychotic
features. It is noted in the relevant court documents that, according to the medical reports, he
suffers from anxiety, tension, restlessness, sleep disturbances, delusions, hallucinations and
suicidal thoughts. His condition was assessed to be life-threatening because of the risk of
suicide that is claimed to have originated in the death threats the author had received in
Afghanistan. On 7 April 2017, the Swedish Migration Agency considered that the
circumstances in the author’s case were exceptionally distressing and acknowledged that
there were shortcomings in the care available to patients with mental health problems in the
Afghan health system. Relying on the available country information, the Migration Agency
nonetheless concluded that some sort of psychiatric treatment, and the medications
prescribed for the author in Sweden, were available in Kabul and therefore, he would run no
risks of death or other forms of ill-treatment if returned to Afghanistan.
2.3
In the appeals procedure, the author submitted new medical reports which indicate
that he has suicidal thoughts and as a result, was once committed to a clinic for treatment in
Sweden under the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act. Furthermore, he was under medical
observation because he was showing symptoms of schizophrenia.2 On 27 October 2017, the
Migration Court denied the author’s appeal, holding that the paranoid schizophrenia
diagnosis was not properly documented. Basing itself only on the diagnosis of post-traumatic
stress disorder, and while acknowledging the existence of exceptionally distressing
circumstances in his case, the Migration Court found that, if the author were to be returned
to Afghanistan, he would have access to adequate medical treatment in Kabul. In this respect,
the Migration Court also noted that, on the basis of the information in the file, it could not be
established that the author would face a risk of violence en route to Kabul to get the necessary
treatment. On 22 December 2017, the Migration Court of Appeal denied the author’s request
for leave to appeal.
1
2
2
The author notes that the claims he raised in his initial application for asylum are not the subject
matter of his complaint before the Committee.
The author also submitted as evidence to the court an expert opinion issued by the previous country
director of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan. This confirms the lack of access to adequate mental
health care in Afghanistan.