CRPD/C/24/D/49/2018
invites the Committee to take into account that claims relating to the non-refoulement
principle can already be lodged with several international human rights institutions. If the
Committee takes the view that article 15 of the Convention includes an obligation of nonrefoulement, the State party considers that this obligation should apply only to claims relating
to an alleged risk of torture.
4.10 The State party notes that the Convention requires a direct link between the disability
of an author and the alleged violation, without creating any new rights, and submits that the
communication is based on a number of issues unrelated to the author’s disability, including
his Hazara ethnicity, the length of his residence in Sweden and the alleged risk of sexual
abuse. The State party argues that this part of the communication should therefore be declared
inadmissible ratione materiae.
4.11 To the extent that the author claims that such risk of sexual abuse originates from his
disability, the State party notes that such an argument was not raised in the domestic
procedure. Nor did the author raise a risk of lack of access to health care required for his
disability. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible for a failure to exhaust
domestic remedies.
4.12 On the merits, the State party submits that the author has failed to show that he would
personally face a foreseeable, present and real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation
of article 15 of the Convention upon return to Afghanistan. The State party notes that
Afghanistan is a party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and refers to reports on the
human rights situation in Afghanistan.6 It submits that it does not wish to underestimate the
concerns that may be legitimately expressed with respect to the current human rights and
security situation in Afghanistan. However, its authorities have evaluated the prevailing
situation in relation to the author’s individual circumstances and found that he has not
substantiated a need for international protection related to the general security situation in
Afghanistan.
4.13 The State party observes that its authorities have thoroughly examined the author’s
case, and his claimed personal risk, on the basis of domestic legislation, which is significantly
broader in scope than article 15 of the Convention. The author had an initial introductory
interview, another interview in the presence of a legal guardian, due to his registration as a
minor at the time, and an extensive asylum investigation in the presence of the guardian and
a counsel. He was also assisted by an interpreter, whom he confirmed he understood well.
His appeals, lodged by a legal counsel, were examined by two courts, and the Swedish
authorities additionally examined his claimed impediments to expulsion. The author was
moreover invited, through his counsel, to submit observations on the minutes of the
interviews and to make submissions and appeals. Therefore, he has had several opportunities
to explain the relevant facts and circumstances of his case.
4.14 The State party submits that its authorities have thus had sufficient information to
ensure a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment of his claimed need for
protection. It specifies that its authorities have examined the author’s disability in relation to
his asserted risk of ill-treatment, contrary to his claim before the Committee, and that there
is no well-known general risk for persons with the author’s type of disability. Moreover,
given that the Migration Agency and the migration courts are specialized in the field of
asylum law and practice, there is no reason to conclude that the outcome of the domestic
proceedings was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. As such, it is not for the
6
Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international
peace and security (A/73/374-S/2018/824); Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, “Country policy and information note – Afghanistan: Hazaras” (August 2018); United
Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, “Midyear update on the protection of civilians in armed
conflict: 1 January to 30 June 2018” (15 July 2018); United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from
Afghanistan (30 August 2018); European Asylum Support Office, Country Guidance: Afghanistan –
Guidance Note and Common Analysis (June 2018); and European Asylum Support Office Country of
Origin Information Report: Afghanistan Security Situation (December 2017) and the May 2018 update
thereto.
5