CRPD/C/18/D/28/2015 The complaint 3.1 The author considers that Sweden, through its Migration Agency, has violated his son’s rights under article 7 (2) of the Convention. The author alleges that the Migration Agency consistently maintained its stance to deport E.O.J. and his family to Nigeria without considering the severe health consequences of such an action. The author notes that the medical report from E.O.J.’s doctor states that his son is in need of continuous care and support from specially trained personnel who can assist both his parents and his learning facilitators in order to achieve what is best for him. 3.2 The author also considers that the State party has also violated his son’s rights under article 12 (4) of the Convention, insofar as the domestic authorities did not ensure that all measures were taken to enable E.O.J. to exercise his legal capacity. The author considers that the Migration Agency did not respect E.O.J.’s rights, will and preferences. The author also considers that the measures taken were not free of conflict of interest and undue influence, as the health case was decided by the same department of the Migration Agency and was not subject to appeal. The author submits that, the fact that no oral hearing took place in relation to E.O.J.’s health case is also a violation of article 12 of the Convention. 3.3 The author submits that the measures taken by the domestic authorities were not proportional and tailored to E.O.J.’s circumstances as the Migration Agency did not make any effort to personally contact the hospitals in Nigeria to ascertain the authenticity of the claims of E.O.J.’s parents concerning the unavailability of medical care and education for autistic children. The author considers that the Agency intentionally disregarded all attempts to show that the information gathered from the MedCOI database were not adapted to his son’s case. He also considers that the appeals and new applications that he submitted regarding the case were not reviewed by an independent and impartial authority. 3.4 The author considers that his son’s rights under article 15 (2) of the Convention have been violated insofar as a deportation to Nigeria would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, considering the nature of E.O.J.’s disability and circumstances. On this point, the author joins a letter sent by his wife to the Migration Agency and other authorities in which she describes: (a) that E.O.J. sometimes has injuries and they do not know how he has gotten them; (b) the difficulties that they daily face as parents in attending to their child to help and protect him; (c) their need for support in dealing with his unexpected reactions and behaviours; (d) their fear that their child and the whole family would be excluded from Nigerian society because of his disability, regarding which there is no awareness in the country. 3.5 The author notes that, currently, E.O.J receives the kind of support he needs at his preschool and through the intensive behavioural therapy sessions he attends with his parents and personal learning facilitator. The author argues that deporting E.O.J. to Nigeria, where there is no access to the kind of education and support he requires would amount to a violation of his son’s rights under article 24 of the Convention, as it would automatically interrupt the support and treatment he is currently receiving. 3.6 In addition, the author considers that deportation of the family to Nigeria would deprive his son of access to adequate health care and to the habilitation and rehabilitation programmes he has been attending, which have had positive results. He therefore considers that their removal to Nigeria would amount to a violation of his son’s rights under articles 25 (a) and 26 of the Convention. 3.7 Finally, the author considers that, in case of their removal to Nigeria, his son’s right to an adequate standard of living and social protection in compliance with article 28 (2) (a) of the Convention would be violated, insofar as he would be denied access to appropriate and affordable services, devices and other support to meet his disability-related needs. The author argues that all these violations are against the best interests of the child. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 22 June 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It requested that the admissibility of the communication be examined separately from the merits, in accordance with rule 70 (8) of the Committee’s rules of 4