CRPD/C/23/D/60/2019 responsibility of the removing State under the Convention. The Committee considers that the principle of non-refoulement imposes a duty on a State party to refrain from removing a person from its territory when there is a real risk that the person would be subjected to serious violations of Convention rights amounting to a risk of irreparable harm, including but not limited to those enshrined in articles 10 and 15 of the Convention. 10 The Committee therefore considers that the principle of extraterritorial effect would not prevent it from examining the present communication under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. In this connection, the Committee further notes the author’s claims that her removal to Iraq would lead to a grave risk to her life and health, as she would be unable to access necessary and life-saving medical care in that country. The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated these claims raised under articles 10 and 15 of the Convention for purposes of admissibility. 6.5 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that her right to equal recognition before the law under article 12 of the Convention was violated as the proceedings before the State party domestic authorities were focused on the reasons for her health condition, rather than the risk her removal to Iraq would entail. It also notes her argument that her special vulnerability as a woman with disabilities and without a family network in Iraq was not recognized by the State party authorities in violation of her rights under article 6 of the Convention. The Committee notes, however, that the author has not provided any additional specific information or argumentation to justify her claims under articles 6 and 12 of the Convention, nor has she explained how these claims would amount to a real and personal risk of irreparable harm if she were to be removed to Iraq. It therefore finds that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, her claims under articles 6 and 12 of the Convention and finds these claims inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 In the absence of any other challenges to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it concerns the author’s claims under articles 10 and 15 of the Convention, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information it has received, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 73 (1) of its rules of procedure. 7.2 The Committee recalls that article 10 of the Convention stipulates that States parties have the obligation to reaffirm that every person has the inherent right to life and that States parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others. The Committee further recalls that under article 15 of the Convention, State parties have the obligation to ensure that they take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 7.3 The Committee further notes the findings of the Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 31 (2004), in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 11 It notes that the Human Rights Committee has indicated in its jurisprudence that the risk must be personal12 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.13 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.14 The Human 10 11 12 13 14 8 See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 12. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 12. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2. Ibid.; and X. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. Ibid.