CRPD/C/18/D/28/2015 The State party therefore submits that an explicit right not to be returned to a country where an author is at risk of suffering inhuman treatment owing to his or her state of health cannot be derived from the provisions of the Convention and that the complaint should therefore be dismissed as inadmissible ratione personae under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. The State party further reiterates that, should the Committee find that the author’s claim in relation to article 15 is admissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, then it should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. 6.7 As regards the merits of the case, the State party considers that the enforcement of the decision to return the author and his family to Nigeria does not constitute a violation by Sweden of the Convention. The State party argues that the burden of proof in cases such as the present one rests with the author, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to his or her country of origin. In addition, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be personal and present. The State party refers to its observations of 22 June 2015 with regard to the jurisprudence and general comment No. 1 of the Committee against Torture. 6.8 The State party notes that there are several provisions in the Aliens Act which regulate impediments to enforcement of an expulsion order. According to chapter 12, section 1, of the Aliens Act, an alien must not be sent to a country where there is fair reason to assume that he or she would be in danger of suffering the death penalty or of being subjected to corporal punishment, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The State party reiterates that, under certain conditions, an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order has gained legal effect (see para. 4.2 above). 6.9 The State party notes that a public counsel was appointed to represent the author and his family in the asylum case and that their asylum claim was investigated, both orally and in written form, with an interpreter and in the presence of counsel. An appeal lodged against the decision in the asylum case was examined by the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal. The State party also notes that the question of whether the disability of the author’s son and his need for care could be considered to constitute an impediment to enforcement was examined by the Migration Agency under chapter 12, section 18, on four separate occasions. Through their counsel, the author and his family were asked to submit documentation on E.O.J.’s diagnosis and care needs. Furthermore, through the Medical Country of Origin Information, the Migration Agency investigated what type of care is available in Nigeria to a child with E.O.J.’s disability. In the request sent by Medical Country of Origin Information to a local medical doctor in Nigeria, information was requested on whether inpatient and outpatient treatment by child psychiatrists, paediatricians, child psychologists and day care for autistic children were available in Nigeria, and in which locations. In the reply, the local doctor stated that psychologists and psychiatrists are available at most tertiary centres and that they attend to children. He also stated that the federal neuropsychiatrist hospital in Lagos has child psychiatrist and child psychologist services and that day care for children with autism is available in Lagos. 6.10 The State party notes the author’s allegation that there was no oral hearing in the case. It, however, submits that an oral hearing was held during the asylum proceedings before the Migration Agency and that the author did not request an oral hearing before the Migration Court. 6.11 The State party also notes that the author claims that the decisions not to grant his son a residence permit under chapter 12, section 18, of the Aliens Act (in relation to the health case) was non-appealable and that that constitutes a violation under the Convention. The State party argues that chapter 12, section 18, is applicable if new circumstances 5 8 17341/03, decision of 22 June 2004; and Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom, application No. 27034/05, decision of 28 February 2006. See Human Rights Committee, communications No. 1302/2004, Khan v. Canada, decision adopted on 25 July 2006; and No. 2284/2013, F.M. v. Canada, Views adopted on 5 November 2015.