CRPD/C/24/D/49/2018 Committee to decide on the correctness of the application of domestic law. The State party concludes that considerable weight must be attached to the opinions of its authorities. 4.15 The State party observes that the author has not plausibly demonstrated any threat posed to him by his maternal family, despite several opportunities to explain his stated need for protection. It argues that there is no reason to question this conclusion in a forwardlooking assessment. 4.16 The State party notes that the author has not substantiated why or how he would be at risk due to his Hazara ethnicity. He stated before the Migration Agency that he had not experienced any discrimination on that ground in Afghanistan. 4.17 The State party observes that the author does not know why he was sexually assaulted, and that his contention that a continued risk against him cannot be excluded remained unsubstantiated. The Migration Agency found that the events in question occurred many years ago and that he had not demonstrated a risk warranting international protection. Similarly, the Migration Court considered that the author was an adult and could thus choose to reside anywhere in Afghanistan. The Court noted the absence of circumstances indicating that the same perpetrators would abuse him again upon return, or that they would even learn of his return. 4.18 On the claimed risk of ill-treatment due to his disability, the State party notes that the first time that the author mentioned that he had been harassed and mistreated was in an application for a re-examination of his case, after the expulsion order had become final, despite ample opportunity to present his reasons for applying for asylum. The first time that he raised it, he did not specify that claim at all. His statement was vague and not substantiated by country-of-origin information. He failed to specify the kind of treatment, when he was subjected to it and by whom. Thus, the State party’s authorities concluded that it had not been shown that he would face such a risk of social exclusion or other difficulties so as to render his expulsion contrary to the State party’s conventional obligations. 4.19 Noting the author’s claimed risk of unemployment in Afghanistan owing to his disability, the State party questions how such a claim could amount to the above-mentioned risk of treatment contrary to article 15 of the Convention. Moreover, the author stated before the Swedish authorities that he had worked in Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran, that he had paid for the journey to Sweden with money he had earned from working and that he had attended regular school in Afghanistan for five years. Thus, the Migration Agency concluded that the author was a healthy, employable man capable of re-establishing himself in Afghan society. The circumstances of his case were furthermore not deemed to be exceptionally distressing. Moreover, there are large numbers of persons with disabilities in Afghanistan due to the conflict and the widespread presence of landmines and abandoned ammunition. Tolerance of and understanding for persons with physical disabilities is relatively good in Afghan society.7 The high unemployment rate renders access to the labour market more difficult for persons with disabilities, but there are several organizations working to safeguard their rights. 4.20 The State party notes that the author does not substantiate why his claimed lack of health care in Afghanistan would violate his rights under article 26 of the Convention. The State party considers the claim under this article inadmissible ratione materiae and has therefore interpreted it in the light of article 15 of the Convention. The State party observes that the author has not explained what health care he needs and considers that this part of the communication is thus inadmissible as insufficiently substantiated. Furthermore, the medical report dated 12 September 2017 does not seem to have been invoked in the domestic proceedings. Nevertheless, in interpreting article 15 of the Convention, the State party invites the Committee to follow the approach of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Paposhvili v. Belgium, 8 in which the Court found that only very exceptional circumstances may raise an issue with respect to an applicant’s health under article 3 of the 7 8 6 See Ministry for Foreign Affairs, “Mänskliga rättigheter, demokrati och rättsstatens principer i Afghanistan 2015–2016” (26 April 2017). European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium, Application No. 41738/10, Judgment, 13 December 2016.