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.

Select target paragraph3