CRPD/C/18/D/28/2015 procedure. The State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione personae under article 1 of the Optional Protocol1 and under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol as being manifestly ill-founded for lack of substantiation. 4.2 The State party provides an overview of the relevant domestic legislation pertaining to the expulsion of aliens. It notes that under the Aliens Act (2005), matters concerning the rights of aliens to enter and remain in the State party are normally processed by three instances: the Migration Agency, the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal. A person who has a well-founded fear of being subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment if removed to his or her country is entitled to a residence permit in Sweden, and there is an absolute prohibition on the expulsion of a person to a country where he or she would be at risk of being subjected to such treatment. Moreover, under certain conditions, a person may be granted a residence permit even if an expulsion order has been issued and the decision has become final, namely if new circumstances have emerged that would indicate that he or she would be at risk of being sentenced to death or that he or she would be subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, or when there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced. Special consideration is also paid to the situation of children who may be granted a residence permit, even if the circumstances invoked are not as grave as those required for the granting of residence permits for adults. 4.3 The State party notes that the author’s complaint has been examined by the Migration Agency and the migration courts. The health reasons invoked have also been subject to consideration by the domestic authorities, which have held that the author and his family are not entitled to residence permits. In its assessment, the domestic authorities considered that the health reasons invoked are not of such a nature that the deportation of the author and his family would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. 4.4 The State party notes that under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is competent to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the State party of the provisions of the Convention. The State party notes that the author’s allegations under articles 7, 12, 24, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention are based on the assumption that the rights of the author and his family would be violated in Nigeria, if they were to be deported there. The State party notes that Nigeria is a party to the Convention and its Optional Protocol. The State party therefore argues that the complaint is outside its jurisdiction for the purposes of the Optional Protocol. The State party submits that the complaint should be declared inadmissible ratione personae under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, as it relates to articles 7, 12, 24, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention. 4.5 As regards the author’s allegations under article 15 of the Convention, the State party requests the Committee to consider whether that provision also encompasses the principle of non-refoulement. In doing so, the State party notes that claims relating to the non-refoulement principle may be lodged under several other international human rights procedures. If the Committee takes the view that article 15 of the Convention includes an obligation of non-refoulement, the State party submits that this obligation should only extend to claims relating to an alleged risk of torture upon the return of the victim to his or her country of origin. 4.6 Irrespective of the Committee’s conclusion as to whether article 15 of the Convention entails an obligation of non-refoulement, the State party submits that the complaint should be held inadmissible for lack of substantiation. The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, according to which, the burden of proof rests on the complainant who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture. 2 The State party also refers to the Committee against Torture general comment No. 1 (1997) on the 1 2 The Committee understands that, given the argumentation presented by the State party, it is referring to the Committee’s competence ratione materiae. See Committee against Torture, communications No. 178/2001, H.O. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 13 November 2001, para. 13; and No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. 5