CRPD/C/23/D/60/2019 It refers to the Court’s judgment in Paposhvili v. Belgium8 in which the Court found that only very exceptional circumstances may raise an issue under article 3 in this context. In the present case, the State party argues that its domestic migration authorities have, on several occasions, assessed whether enforcement of the expulsion order against the author would violate her rights under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, owing to her cited ill health, and have concluded that it would not, as her mental health condition has been found to not be of a permanent nature. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 27 April 2020, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. She maintains that the communication is admissible. 5.2 The author notes the State party’s argument that the migration authorities in their decisions found that she had not substantiated that she suffers from any long-term mental impairment or that care was not available to her in Iraq. She argues that she has presented several medical certificates that substantiate that she suffers from long-term mental impairment. She notes that in the domestic proceedings, the migration authorities did not assess whether she would be able to access health care if removed to Iraq. She refers to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Paposhvili v. Belgium and notes that the Court has found that if an applicant has brought forward evidence showing that there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, then it is for the authorities of the returning State to dispel any doubts raised by the applicant. She further notes that in Paposhvili v. Belgium, the Court concluded that, as the applicant in that case had been able to substantiate the serious impacts a removal to his country of origin would have on his health, the burden of proof for showing that he would have actual access to health care shifted to the State. B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility and the merits Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter has not already been examined by the Committee and nor has it been or is it being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that: (a) The communication should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly illfounded under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol; (b) The part of the communication relating to the author’s claims under articles 6 and 12 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae and ratione loci under article 1 of the Optional Protocol; (c) The Committee should consider whether the author’s claims under articles 10 and 15 of the Convention are inadmissible ratione materiae under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee refers to its jurisprudence in O.O.J. v. Sweden9 in which it noted that the removal by a State party of an individual to a jurisdiction where he or she would risk facing violations of the Convention may, under certain circumstances, engage the 8 9 European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium, Application No. 41738/10, judgment, 13 December 2016. CRPD/C/18/D/28/2015, para. 10.3. 7