CRPD/C/23/D/60/2019
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that, by deporting her to Iraq, the State party would violate her
rights under articles 10 and 15 of the Convention, as her removal would lead to a grave risk
of suicide and to other risks to her life and health. She claims that the medical certificates
submitted by her before domestic authorities establish that she is diagnosed with long-term
mental illness, and she claims that the probability that she would be able to receive
treatment for her disabilities in Iraq is very low.3 She further claims that her mental illness
constitutes a long-term mental impairment and that her mental health has deteriorated
during her stay in the State party. She notes that her condition has been described as lifethreatening in the medical certificates she submitted before State party authorities. She
further notes that she has also been diagnosed with diabetes and high blood pressure, which
aggravate the risk to her life and health.
3.2
The author further argues that, as the proceedings before the State party were more
focused on the reasons underlying her condition rather than what real risk of treatment in
violation of the Convention her disability poses, it can be questioned if she has received
equal recognition before the law, in accordance with her rights under article 12 of the
Convention. She also argues that, as a woman without a family network in Iraq, her special
vulnerability as a woman with disabilities is to be recognized under article 6 of the
Convention.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 14 February 2020, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and merits of the communication. It submits that the communication should be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol as
the author has not substantiated that she suffers from a long-term mental impairment for
which care is unavailable to her in Iraq. It also submits that the part of the communication
relating to the author’s claims under articles 6 and 12 of the Convention should be declared
inadmissible ratione materiae and ratione loci under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. The
State party further submits that the Committee should consider whether the author’s claims
under articles 10 and 15 of the Convention are inadmissible ratione materiae under article 1
of the Optional Protocol. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the
State party submits that it is without merit.
4.2
The State party notes that when the author initially applied for asylum in Sweden,
the Migration Agency made a search of her fingerprints in the Visa Information System
database, which showed that she had been granted a French visa before entering Sweden.
On 13 March 2013, the Agency informed her that it would request the French authorities to
assume responsibility for the examination of her asylum application in accordance with the
Dublin regulations. Upon acceptance by the French authorities of the Agency’s request, the
Agency accordingly decided on 5 June 2013 to reject the author’s application for asylum
and to transfer her to France in accordance with the Dublin regulations. However, the
stipulated time frame for enforcing the transfer order expired on 7 November 2014 without
the complainant having been transferred to France. After the transfer order had expired, the
author applied for asylum in the State party on 27 February 2015. This application was
rejected by a final decision of 29 June 2017.
4.3
After the expulsion order against the author had become final, she applied on three
occasions for a residence permit citing impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion
order. The Migration Agency rejected the first application on 15 October 2018, concluding
that, although not questioning the author’s described state of health, she had not
substantiated that she was suffering from a severe or life-threatening mental or physical
illness. The decision was upheld by the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal
on 12 February and 16 March 2018, respectively. The author thereafter submitted a second
application for impediment to enforcement of the expulsion order, which was rejected by
3
4
The author refers to: Education for Peace in Iraq Center, “Iraq’s quiet mental health crisis”, 5 May
2017; and Medecins sans Frontieres, “Healing Iraqis: the challenges of providing mental health care
in Iraq”, 29 April 2013.