CRPD/C/25/D/58/2019 substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment if removed.26 Nevertheless, it is not a matter of requiring clear proof, as a certain degree of speculation is inherent in the preventive purpose of the principle of non-refoulement.27 In the Committee’s opinion, in the present case, the author has discharged that burden of proof. However, the domestic authorities failed to dispel any doubts about the risks he would face upon his return to Afghanistan. In this respect, the Committee notes that the domestic authorities assessed the author’s ill-health and suicidal ideation to be primarily linked to his disappointment at his asylum process, which seems to have unreasonably weakened the author’s claims associated with his diagnosis. The Committee observes that the migration authorities held that the medical care necessary to prevent the author from suffering a violation of his rights under article 15 would be available to him upon return to Afghanistan. The basis for this assessment were reports on the general situation of access to health care in Afghanistan, which, however, reveal the limited availability of psychiatric care and access to medication. Additional reliable sources of information on the situation of health care in Afghanistan consulted by the Committee report a lack of trained professionals (psychiatrists, social workers and psychologists), infrastructure and awareness about mental health issues with very limited resources covering a population of more than 30 million people.28 The Committee notes that the domestic authorities have, to a large extent, acknowledged these deficiencies, which casts serious doubts on the availability of the health care needed by the author in order to prevent violations of his rights under article 15, as specified in paragraph 10.7 above. Under these circumstances, the State party’s authorities were under an obligation to consider the extent to which the author will actually have access to the required care in Afghanistan29 and, if serious doubts persist, to obtain individual and sufficient assurances from that State.30 The Committee considers that the State party’s assertion that the author’s expulsion will be enforced in such a manner so as to minimize his suffering cannot suffice in this regard. Therefore, the Committee is of the view that individual assurances would have been particularly important in the circumstances of the present case given that the author left Afghanistan at a very young age 13 years ago, and reports indicate that returnees may face particular challenges in accessing health-care services.31 10.10 In such circumstances, the Committee considers that there remain serious doubts as to whether the author would indeed have access to adequate medical treatment to prevent a violation of his rights under article 15 of the Convention in Afghanistan. It is therefore unable to conclude that the domestic authorities’ assessment has not been arbitrary as regards the existence of a real risk of irreparable harm for the author in his country of origin. 10.11 In the light of the above considerations, the Committee is of the view that the author’s removal to Afghanistan would, if implemented, violate his rights under article 15 of the Convention. 10.12 In the light of these findings, the Committee considers it not necessary to separately consider the author’s claims under article 10 of the Convention. C. Conclusion and recommendations 11. The Committee, acting under article 5 of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. The Committee therefore makes the following recommendations to the State party: 26 27 28 29 30 31 12 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 38; and European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium (para. 186). European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium, para. 186. WHO, “Afghanistan Country Office 2019”, updated in December 2018; and European Asylum Support Office, Afghanistan: Key socio-economic indicators – Focus on Kabul City, Mazar-e Sharif and Herat City, Country of Origin Information Report, August 2020, p. 56. European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium, para. 190. European Court of Human Rights, Savran v. Denmark, para. 48; and Tarakhel v. Switzerland, Application No. 29217/12, Judgment of 4 November 2014, para. 120. European Asylum Support Office, Afghanistan: Key socio-economic indicators, p. 57.