CRPD/C/18/D/28/2015 implementation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, according to which, the Committee is not a fourth degree of jurisdiction, and that considerable weight will be given to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned (para. 9). The State party further refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, according to which, it is for the courts of the States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and circumstances in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were evaluated were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 3 The State party submits that the above-mentioned principle should be taken into account in cases before the Committee as well. 4.7 The State party submits that the author’s claims have been thoroughly examined by the domestic authorities and that there is no reason to conclude that the considerations were inadequate, arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the State party submits that great weight must be given to the original opinions of the State party’s migration authorities, as expressed in their rulings. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 24 and 28 July 2015, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. He maintains that the communication is admissible. 5.2 As regards the application for residence permits based on his son’s disability, the author submits that it was considered by the Migration Agency only and that the decision of the Agency was not subject to appeal. Subsequently, the only part of the family’s claims that were tried in court were their application for asylum. He submits that this in itself amounts to a violation of articles 3 (a)-(b) and (e)-(f), 4 (a)-(e), 5 (1)-(4), 7 (1)-(2), 12 (4), 13 (1)-(2), 24, 25, 26 (1) and 28 of the Convention. 5.3 The author also submits that the Migration Agency lacks the medical expertise to handle complex cases like E.O.J.’s and that it fails to involve such expertise in its decisionmaking process, in violation of article 12 of the Convention. In addition, the author notes that, while a person applying for asylum is entitled to a public legal counsel, this is not the case for applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds such as E.O.J.’s health case, in which the family was represented pro bono. He submits that this strongly limits the possibilities to seek and obtain justice. 5.4 The author also notes that his claims under article 12 of the Convention were made in relation to the proceedings available in the State party. He argues that it is foreseeable that the deportation of E.O.J. to Nigeria will cause irreparable harm to his health and development and will amount to inhuman treatment. He submits that it is the State party’s responsibility to ensure that such harm is not caused. The author also submits that it is foreseeable that Nigeria will not be able to protect E.O.J.’s rights under the Convention if he were to be deported. 5.5 On 21 August 2015, the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, acting on behalf of the Committee, decided not to grant the State party’s request for the admissibility of the communication to be examined separately from the merits. State party’s observations on the merits and additional observations on admissibility 6.1 On 11 April 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. The State party submits that the claims under articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. It reiterates its position with regard to the claim under article 15 of the Convention and states that should the Committee find that the communication is admissible, the State party submits that it is without merit. 6.2 The State party describes the domestic legislation pertaining to residence permits under the Aliens Act. It notes that under article 7 (2) of the Convention, the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children with disabilities. 3 6 Ibid., communication No. 219/2002, G.K. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 7 May 2003, para. 6.12.