CRPD/C/24/D/49/2018 applicant, who suffered from a life-threatening clinical condition, to Saint Kitts and Nevis would amount to inhuman treatment as he would lack medical treatment, a livelihood, housing and family support.5 The author submits that his case manifests a similar risk, as he would be unable to maintain his own health without adequate care. He submitted to the Committee a medical report dated 12 September 2017. 3.4 Similarly, the author claims that the courts in Sweden found that he would be able to work in Afghanistan, but he subsequently obtained an assessment of his potential to work that concluded that he would mainly be able to perform simple, administrative, calmer indoor work. He would thus have great difficulties in finding work in Afghanistan. He submits that this is a new circumstance that justifies the granting of international protection. 3.5 The author asserts that the Migration Agency and the courts never assessed the situation that he would face upon return. They considered that it was not likely that he would again be subjected to sexual abuse upon return to Afghanistan, even though they did not question his history of sexual abuse. They considered only whether his disability was a particularly distressing circumstance, which is insufficient given that Afghanistan is a country where persons with disabilities are at risk of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that the author would lack adequate help and health care. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale of 2 November 2018, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It notes that the author applied for asylum on 25 August 2015. The Migration Agency rejected his application on 14 October 2016 and decided to expel him to Afghanistan. As the author had been determined to be an adult, the Migration Agency applied higher standards in respect of the credibility of his statements. It questioned his stated lack of knowledge of his parents’ situation, including with regard to the reasons why they had not been permitted to live together and why they had returned to the village where they had been threatened, particularly given that he had been able to give an account of his own kidnapping and removal from the village by his paternal uncle. 4.2 The author had been unable to give a detailed account of how he had been threatened in his childhood. He said only that his uncle had told him that he was being threatened and that he was not allowed to go out by himself. His uncle had heard from acquaintances that his maternal family wanted to kill him because he had been born out of wedlock, but the author could not state who those acquaintances were or how they had received information about the threats. The Migration Agency questioned this account on the ground that the author had also claimed that for a time he had been in the keeping of his maternal family and that they had injured him, but had still allowed his uncle to take him to Kabul. Furthermore, he was unable to provide any concrete examples of the type of threats received. Thus, the Migration Agency considered that he had not provided reliable information about the death of his parents or the threats received in Kabul. Moreover, he had lived in Kabul for most of his life without being subjected to any harm. The Migration Agency concluded that the author had not plausibly demonstrated an individualized threat in Afghanistan. Neither were there any indications that he would otherwise be at greater risk of being subjected to violence there due to the prevailing conflict, nor any exceptionally distressing circumstances in the sense of chapter 5, section 6 of the Aliens Act and section 11 of the temporary act limiting the possibility to obtain a residence permit in Sweden. 4.3 The Migration Court rejected the author’s appeal on 1 March 2017. The Court acknowledged that the general security situation in Afghanistan, including Kabul, had deteriorated, but that conditions were not such as to justify the granting of international protection to those who risked being returned there. Neither did the prevailing situation of Hazaras provide such grounds. The Court found that the author’s account of the events in his childhood could not lead to a different conclusion, as those events had occurred a long time before and were based on second-hand information. Nothing had emerged to suggest that he had been subjected to any harm in Kabul during his long residence there. If he nonetheless 5 European Court of Human Rights, D. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Application No. 30240/96, Judgment, 2 May 1997. 3

Select target paragraph3