CRPD/C/25/D/58/2019 Convention, as his removal would lead to a grave risk of suicide, as well as other serious risks to his life and health. It notes his information that he has been diagnosed with severe depression with psychotic features and that he has been committed to a clinic for treatment under the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act, after experiencing hallucinations and suicidal thoughts and attempts. The Committee is also mindful of the author’s argument that, while he submitted several medical certificates in his asylum procedures confirming that he has also been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, the authorities did not consider it necessary to conduct a new examination of his claim to ascertain whether appropriate treatment would be available for his condition in the light of the new diagnosis. The Committee further observes the author’s allegation that in the medical certificates, his health condition has been described as life-threatening without treatment and yet his diagnosis was given less weight by the authorities, as this was considered to originate in the denial of his asylum claim. 10.6 On the other hand, the Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that its domestic authorities have conducted a thorough examination of the author’s claims and that there is no reason to conclude that the domestic decisions were inadequate or that the outcome of the proceedings was in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. It notes the State party’s submission that the migration authorities had extensive information before them regarding the author’s health condition irrespective of his most recent diagnosis, which allowed them to carry out a well-informed, transparent and reasonable assessment of the author’s claims. 10.7 The Committee must therefore determine in the present case, taking into account the factors set out above, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would face a real risk of irreparable harm as contemplated in articles 10 and article 15 of the Convention if he were to be removed to Afghanistan, such as being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.24 The Committee notes that it is undisputed between the parties that the author has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and that he was being treated for this condition, which was assessed to be life-threatening due to the risk of suicide. The Committee further notes that it appears from the Migration Court’s decision of 17 July 2018 that the author’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was not questioned at the domestic level, but was considered not to constitute new circumstances for the purposes of a new examination of the author’s asylum application. 10.8 The Committee notes that the parties disagree as to whether the domestic authorities’ assessment met the applicable human rights standards in relation to the author’s claim that he would not be able to have access to adequate medical treatment in Afghanistan. The Committee is mindful of the author’s arguments that a new assessment would have been required by the domestic authorities in the light of his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and that in any event, the relevant country information does not support the position of the authorities that mental health treatment would be available to him, even for his post-traumatic stress disorder. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the Migration Court’s position that the author’s symptoms and functional impairment, which constituted part of the Migration Court’s assessment in the initial proceedings, were largely the same as those described in the medical certificates that confirmed the author’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. The Committee recalls that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Convention to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.25 In view of the fact that there has been an assessment by the asylum authorities of the risks of harm associated with the author’s mental health condition, the Committee cannot conclude that the refusal of the State party’s authorities to conduct a separate risk analysis in a new set of proceedings, based on the author’s new diagnosis, rendered the rejection of the author’s asylum application arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 10.9 The Committee recalls the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture and the European Court of Human Rights according to which the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must adduce evidence capable of demonstrating that there are 24 25 N.L. v. Sweden, para. 7.5. Bacher v. Austria (CRPD/C/19/D/26/2014), para. 9.7. 11