CRPD/C/24/D/49/2018
felt that there was a threat to himself, it must be regarded as a local threat, which he could
avoid by choosing to reside in another city, such as Herat or Mazar-e Sharif. As the author is
a young, employable man, such internal relocation could not be considered unjust hardship.
On 11 April 2017, the Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant leave to appeal.
4.4
The author then requested a re-examination of his case, invoking impediments to the
enforcement of the expulsion order. He claimed, inter alia, a fear of harassment, injury and
death because of his status as a child of parents who were not married and as a social outcast.
He further claimed that his lack of a social network would expose him to a risk of being
recruited in the ongoing conflict, that he would risk malnutrition due to difficulties in finding
work and that he had been physically injured due to the individual persecution he had suffered.
The Migration Agency decided on 10 May 2017 not to grant a residence permit and not to
re-examine his case on the ground that he had not invoked any new circumstances.
4.5
The author appealed on the grounds that he was a minor, that his social network in
Kabul was gone, that he had been harassed and mistreated in Afghanistan due to his disability
and that he had been born out of wedlock. Moreover, the general security situation in
Afghanistan had deteriorated, as evidenced by a major attack in Kabul on 31 May 2017. The
Migration Court rejected the appeal on 15 June 2017, noting, inter alia, that the author’s age
and non-marital birth had been considered by the Migration Agency and the Migration Court.
Moreover, the claims concerning his disability and social network could not be deemed to
constitute new circumstances forming an impediment to his expulsion. Nor could the change
in the general situation in Afghanistan be qualified as such. The Migration Court of Appeal
decided on 4 July 2017 not to grant leave to appeal.
4.6
The author then filed a second request for re-examination, claiming an inability to
perform monotonous or hard work because he was missing three fingers on his dominant
hand. Because of that and his lack of education, he would be unable to find work in
Afghanistan. Moreover, he had been subjected to serious sexual abuse in Afghanistan while
living with his cousin. People had been looking for him and wanted his cousin to hand him
over, but the cousin would say that the author was not at home. That went on for two or three
months. The cousin had told him that the people knew who he was and to which family he
belonged. One day, the people kidnapped him and took him to a forest where they threatened
and sexually abused him. After his arrival in Sweden, they threatened his cousin’s family,
who were forced to flee. He claimed that he would face a continued risk of abuse at the hands
of those same people upon return to Afghanistan. He also claimed that a psychologist had
ascertained an increased risk of suicide. On 26 January 2018, the Migration Agency decided
not to grant a residence permit to the author and not to re-examine his case. The Migration
Court rejected his appeal on 21 February 2018. The Migration Court of Appeal declined to
grant leave to appeal on 8 March 2018.
4.7
In a third request for re-examination, the author invoked impediments to his removal.
He claimed to have submitted a complaint to the Committee against Torture and that his
expulsion should be suspended to allow that Committee to render a decision in the case. The
Migration Agency decided on 26 March 2018 not to grant a residence permit, not to reexamine his case and not to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order, noting, inter alia,
that the Committee against Torture had not requested the State party to stay the expulsion.
4.8
The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible. It notes that the
author’s claims concern a risk of particular treatment in Afghanistan. The only conduct by
the State party referred to in the complaint is the decision to expel the author to Afghanistan.
The State party argues that any 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 article 15 of the Convention in another State could give rise to such exceptional
circumstances, acts or omissions contrary to other articles cannot. Accordingly, it submits
that the author’s claims under articles 16 and 26 should be declared inadmissible ratione
materiae and ratione loci.
4.9
The State party questions whether article 15 of the Convention invoked by the author
encompasses the principle of non-refoulement. In considering whether this is the case, it
4