CRPD/C/25/D/58/2019
2.4
On 19 February 2018, the author claimed that there were impediments to the
enforcement of his deportation order. He submitted new medical reports as evidence to
substantiate that he suffers not only from post-traumatic stress disorder but also from
paranoid schizophrenia. He also referred to the worsening security situation in Afghanistan.
On 11 June 2018, the Migration Agency found that the medical certificates he had submitted,
including the author’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, did not constitute new
circumstances that would warrant a fresh examination of the case owing to the fact that his
mental health had already been the subject of an examination in the previous set of procedures.
The Migration Agency further noted that the deterioration in the author’s mental health must
be linked to the rejection of his asylum application rather than an indication of a serious
mental health problem.
2.5
The author appealed this decision and claimed that the authorities had failed to assess
whether adequate medical treatment would be available to him in Afghanistan for his
paranoid schizophrenia. He also indicated, for the first time in the asylum procedures, that he
had been a victim of sexual assault prior to his departure from Afghanistan. On 17 July 2018,
the Migration Court dismissed the appeal. The Migration Court stressed that it can be the
symptoms and not necessarily the diagnosis that are of relevance in the domestic authorities’
assessment of the available medical treatment in Afghanistan. In view of the fact that the
author’s symptoms were brought before the authorities in the context of his post-traumatic
stress disorder diagnosis and constituted part of the asylum authorities’ consideration, the
diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia could not lead to a different assessment. Furthermore,
even though the Migration Court did not question the fact that the author may have been a
victim of sexual violence in the past, it concluded that there was nothing in the file to suggest
that he would continue to face a risk of ill-treatment on this ground 10 years after the alleged
incident. On 5 September 2018, the author’s request for leave to appeal was denied.
2.6
The author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights, which,
on 10 January 2019, sitting in a single-judge formation, rejected the author’s request for
interim measures and decided to declare the application inadmissible. 3
2.7
In his submission to the Committee, the author provides up-to-date medical reports to
prove that his health condition has not improved. The documents indicate that the author is
unable to care for himself or run a household due to his paranoid schizophrenia. His condition
is life-threatening because he is experiencing hallucinations and suicidal ideation. In fact, he
already tried to take his own life on an unspecified date. His hallucinations are more frequent
when he feels threatened, for example, when he sees Afghan persons and thinks that they
might want to kill him. He also suffers from a sleep disorder. Although he has already been
referred to the Crisis and Trauma Center in Sweden, patients without a residence permit
cannot commence treatment.
Complaint
3.1
The author claims that, by deporting him to Afghanistan, the State party would violate
his rights under articles 10 and 15 of the Convention, as his removal would lead to a grave
risk of suicide and to other risks to his life and health. He claims that the medical certificates
submitted to the domestic authorities establish that he has been diagnosed with long-term
mental illnesses, and he claims that the lack of proper medical treatment for his condition in
Afghanistan would expose him to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his state of health
resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.4 In this respect,
he relies on several country reports,5 which indicate that people with mental health problems
are stigmatized in Afghanistan, medical workers are not properly trained and there are only
3
4
5
The decision states that: “Having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as it had
jurisdiction to examine the allegations made, the Court considered that the conditions of admissibility
provided for in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention were not fulfilled.”
The author refers to European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium, Application No.
41738/10, Judgment of 13 December 2016, and Aswat v. the United Kingdom, Application No.
17299/12, Judgment of 16 April 2013.
See, for example, World Health Organization (WHO), “Afghanistan Country Office 2019”, updated
in December 2018.
3