CRPD/C/23/D/60/2019
1.2
On 21 May 2019, the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, acting on behalf of the Committee, issued a request for interim measures under
article 4 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, requesting that the State party refrain
from deporting the author to Iraq pending the examination of the communication by the
Committee.
A.
Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author notes that she has been diagnosed with depression with psychotic
features. She has been committed twice under the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act of
Sweden, 1 after experiencing hallucinations and suicidal ideation. She claims that there
would be a serious risk to her life and health if she were to be removed to Iraq, as she
would be unable to access essential medical care. She further notes that she has been
diagnosed with diabetes and high blood pressure.
2.2
The author arrived in Sweden on 13 March 2013. In her claim for asylum, she stated
that she was in need of international protection, as she had had a relationship in Iraq with a
man of whom her family disapproved and she had received death threats from her relatives
because of said relationship. The Migration Agency denied her application for asylum on
14 February 2017, finding her statements to be lacking in credibility. The Migration Court
rejected her appeal on 28 April 2017. The Migration Court of Appeal rejected her
application for leave to appeal on 29 June 2017.2
2.3
After the expulsion order against the author became final, she applied for
impediment of enforcement of the deportation order against her to the Migration Agency.
She stated that her health had deteriorated as she was diagnosed with diabetes and high
blood pressure. She also claimed that she suffered from a sleeping disorder and anxiety and
that she had started to think that death was the only solution. The Migration Agency denied
her application on 15 January 2018. The Agency found that it had not been substantiated
that the author suffered from severe and life-threatening mental or physical illness. The
author appealed the decision to the Migration Court, which dismissed the appeal on 12
February 2018. The Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant leave to appeal on 16
March 2018.
2.4
On 25 April 2018, the author submitted a second application for impediment of
enforcement of the deportation order against her to the Migration Agency. In her
application, she stated that her mental health had deteriorated further. She submitted a
medical certificate from a psychologist, dated 29 January 2018, according to which she was
undergoing treatment for severe depressive and anxiety problems, sleeping disorders,
nightmares, flashbacks, suicidality and signs of incipient apathy. It was noted in the report
that the triggering factor for her severely deteriorating mental health was that she had
received negative decisions on her asylum applications from the Migration Agency. The
author stated that she had initially been able to handle her underlying traumatic experiences
from Iraq when arriving in Sweden, as she had felt relieved to be in a more secure
environment. She had learned Swedish quickly and was looking forward to working as a
teacher. However, after the expulsion decisions, her mental illness became worse and acute.
She notes that, according to a medical certificate dated 31 January 2018, her condition was
assessed as having decreased further and could lead to severe life-threatening complications
if she were to be removed to Iraq. In an additional medical certificate dated 4 April 2018,
the author was noted to have been diagnosed with a severe depressive episode with
psychotic features, following which she was admitted for psychiatric care under the
1
2
2
The author notes that a person may be committed under the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act if a
senior psychiatrist makes the assessment that the person in question: “(1) suffers from a serious
mental disorder; (2) has an essential need for psychiatric care; and (3) opposes offered psychiatric
care or is assessed not to be able to receive care with consent.”
The author notes that the claims she raised in her initial application for asylum are not the subject
matter of her complaint before the Committee.