CRPD/C/25/D/58/2019
320 hospital beds available for the patients in a country of 34 million habitants. He adds that
he left Afghanistan in 2008 and has no financial means or social support in his country of
origin. In Sweden, however, he lives with a family that cares for him and provides him with
continuous support.
3.2
The author also submits that his poor mental condition, despite his exact diagnosis,
was given less weight by the authorities, as it was considered to be linked to the denial of his
asylum claim. The author finds this practice problematic because it is inevitable that the
rejection of asylum claims negatively affects asylum seekers; that should not be assessed to
their detriment when their asylum claim relates precisely to their mental health problems.
The author further argues that the asylum proceedings erroneously focused on the possible
reasons for his condition rather than on the risks of harm associated with his disability and
the absence of proper medical treatment. That approach resulted in an arbitrary assessment
of his claims.
3.3
Furthermore, relying on articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the author argues that
his claims were assessed only against the information that he suffers from post-traumatic
stress disorder. Although he later provided evidence to the authorities substantiating his
diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, they did not consider it necessary to conduct a fresh
examination of his claims, namely whether appropriate treatment would be available for his
condition in the light of his new diagnosis. He further alleges that the State authorities failed
to take adequate steps to adjust the asylum procedures to his special needs, which are the
result of his condition. He claims that the authorities’ failure to do so prevented him from the
effective enjoyment of his right to equal recognition before the law.
3.4
Regarding the issue of whether his case should be considered to have been examined
by another procedure of international investigation or settlement, the author notes that his
application was not examined on the merits by the European Court of Human Rights. In this
regard, he refers to the decision of the Committee against Torture in I.K. v. Norway,6 in which
the Committee did not find itself precluded from examining a communication that had
previously been declared inadmissible by the European Court. The author submits that the
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities should follow the same approach in the
present case.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
In a note verbale dated 2 November 2018, the State party submitted its observations
on the admissibility of the communication.
4.2
The State party holds that the communication should be declared inadmissible as it is
incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. The State party argues
that its responsibility under the Convention for acts or omissions contrary to the Convention
on another State’s territory is to be considered an exception to the main rule that a State
party’s responsibility for Convention obligations is limited to its territory, thus requiring
certain exceptional circumstances. It notes that, although treatment contrary to articles 10 and
15 of the Convention in another State could give rise to such exceptional circumstances, acts
or omissions contrary to other articles cannot.
4.3
The State party questions whether articles 10 and 15 of the Convention, invoked by
the author, encompass the principle of non-refoulement. In considering whether this is the
case, it invites the Committee to take into account the fact that claims relating to the nonrefoulement principle can already be lodged with several international human rights bodies.
If the Committee takes the view that articles 10 and 15 of the Convention include an
obligation of non-refoulement, the State party considers that this obligation should apply only
to claims relating to an alleged risk of torture.
4.4
In addition, the State party is of the view that the communication should be declared
inadmissible because it has been examined by another international body. While the State
party acknowledges that the European Court of Human Rights failed to explicitly identify the
grounds for declaring the author’s application inadmissible, it notes that there was nothing in
6
4
CAT/C/63/D/678/2015.