CRPD/C/18/D/28/2015 It also notes that the principle of the best interests of the child is also expressed in the Aliens Act, which stipulates that particular attention must be given to the child’s health and development and the best interests of the child, in general. 6.3 The State party further notes that, under chapter 12, section 18, of the Aliens Act, the Migration Agency, on its own motion, may raise and examine the issue of whether there is an impediment to enforcement of an expulsion order. A decision not to grant a residence permit under chapter 12, section 18, of the Act is not subject to appeal. However, the Migration Agency can initiate an examination at several junctures, depending on the circumstances cited. If a residence permit is not granted under chapter 12, section 18, of the Aliens Act, the Migration Agency may decide to re-examine the matter under chapter 12, section 19, of the same Act. In accordance with that provision, a re-examination shall be carried out when it may be assumed, on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the applicant, that there are lasting impediments to enforcement. In order to be granted a reexamination of the application for a residence permit pursuant to chapter 12, section 19, of the Aliens Act, the new circumstances cited must be related to the applicant’s need for protection in Sweden. Therefore, until recently, if the circumstances cited referred to, for instance, grounds pertaining to the applicant’s existing state of health, a new examination could not be granted pursuant to chapter 12, section 19, of the Aliens Act. However, according to a decision of the Migration Court of Appeal of 24 March 2015, a new examination may be granted in certain exceptional cases, for example, if an applicant’s lifethreatening disease can lead to the view that expulsion would constitute inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention), and would thereby constitute grounds for protection. 6.4 With regard to the admissibility of the communication, the State party maintains its observations of 22 June 2015 and submits that, as regards the complaint under articles 7, 12, 24, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention, the author’s claims are not based on any treatment that he claims his son will suffer in Sweden, but on treatment that he is likely to suffer in Nigeria. As such, the State party considers that the decision to return the family to Nigeria cannot trigger Sweden’s responsibility under the above-mentioned articles of the Convention. The State party therefore submits that the Committee lacks jurisdiction over the author’s claims under articles 7, 12, 24, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention in respect of Sweden, and that those claims are therefore inadmissible ratione personae, under the Optional Protocol to the Convention. 6.5 The State party notes that the author has also claimed that the State party’s authorities violated his and his family’s rights under articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention in the processing of their applications for residence permits. The State party submits that the author failed to substantiate these claims for the purposes of admissibility. 6.6 As regards the complaint under article 15 on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the State party reiterates its observations of 22 June 2015. It argues that the concept of jurisdiction for the purposes of article 15 of the Convention must be considered within the general meaning of the term in public international law. The State party submits that only in exceptional circumstances can acts of States parties that produce effects (extraterritorial effects) in other States amount to responsibility for the acting State party. It submits that no such exceptional circumstances exist in the present case and that it cannot be held responsible for violations of the Convention that are likely to be committed by another State party outside of Swedish territory and jurisdiction. The State party refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, in which it has clearly stressed the exceptional character of extraterritorial protection of the rights contained in the European Convention.4 It notes that the Human Rights Committee has adopted a similar approach.5 4 See European Court of Human Rights, Soering v. the United Kingdom, application No. 14038/88, judgment of 7 July 1989, paras. 88 and 113; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, application Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, judgment of 4 February 2005, para. 91; Tomic v. the United Kingdom, application No. 17837/03, decision of 14 October 2003; F. v. the United Kingdom, application No. 7