CRPD/C/25/D/58/2019 the application the author submitted to the European Court to suggest that he failed to fulfil the criteria provided for in article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). The State party further argues that the author seems to have complied with the European Court’s six-month requirement. In addition, there was nothing in the file to suggest that the inadmissibly grounds provided for in article 35 (2) (a) and (b) of that Convention were not fulfilled. The State party therefore concludes that the author’s application must have been declared inadmissible by the European Court on the grounds of incompatibility with the provisions of the Convention, lack of substantiation or the author’s failure to meet the significant disadvantage requirement. The State party submits that the examination of any of these issues requires a consideration on the merits of the application. Accordingly, the State party considers that the author’s case should be considered to have been examined on the substance, for the purposes of article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol, and should be declared inadmissible. 4.5 Regarding the alleged violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the State party notes that on 30 November 2016, the Migration Agency interviewed the author in the presence of his counsel. He then was invited to submit written observations on the minutes of his interview. Furthermore, the author was able to submit medical certificates and other documentation in support of his claims. It follows that he had ample opportunity to explain the circumstances of his case, both orally and in writing, before the asylum authorities. Thus, the State party considers that the author failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim that the asylum procedure suffered from deficiencies, in breach of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 4.6 Regarding the author’s claim, submitted partly under articles 12 and 13 and partly under articles 10 and 15 of the Convention, that his most recent diagnosis (paranoid schizophrenia) was not properly assessed by the national authorities, the State party notes that the author first submitted several medical reports which state that he suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder with symptoms such as anxiety, tension, sleep disturbances, delusions, hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. Thereafter, when the author appealed to the Migration Court, he submitted additional medical certificates which indicate that there are reasons to believe that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. The State party underlines that the Migration Court, in its decision of 27 October 2017, duly considered all this information, but held that the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was not sufficiently substantiated. Subsequently, the author submitted further medical documents that listed his symptoms as follows: depressive episodes, anxiety, tension, sleep disturbances, delusions, hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. Since these health issues had already constituted part of the examination of the author’s asylum claim in the initial procedure, the authorities did not consider the information regarding the author’s new diagnosis to be a new circumstance. The State party therefore considers 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. On the basis of the aforementioned circumstances, the State party considers that the author’s allegations fail to rise to the minimum level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility and should be declared inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 16 September 2019, the author submitted that the Committee’s views in O.O.J. et al. v. Sweden7 do not support the State party’s observation of the general rule that a State party’s responsibility for Convention obligations is limited to its territory. The Committee considered in that case that the removal by a State party of an individual to a jurisdiction where he or she would risk facing violations of the Convention may, under certain circumstances, engage the responsibility of the removing State under the Convention, which has no territorial restriction clause.8 7 8 CRPD/C/18/D/28/2015. Ibid., para. 10.3. 5