CRPD/C/23/D/60/2019 Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act, after experiencing hallucinations and suicidal thoughts and attempts. It notes her argument that she has submitted several medical certificates before domestic authorities establishing that she has been diagnosed with long-term mental illness for which she would be unable to receive treatment if removed to Iraq. The Committee further notes her argument that in the medical certificates submitted by her, her health condition has been described as life-threatening without treatment and with her risk of relapse assessed to be grave without adequate care. 7.7 The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that its domestic authorities have conducted a thorough examination of the author’s claims with there being no reason to conclude that the domestic decisions were inadequate or that the outcome of the proceedings was in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. It notes the State party’s submission that the author has not shown that her medical condition is of such a severe and lasting nature that her removal to Iraq would amount to a violation of her rights under the Convention. 7.8 The Committee must therefore determine in the present case, taking into account the factors set out above, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would face a real risk of irreparable harm as contemplated by articles 10 and 15 if she were to be removed to Iraq. The Committee notes that it is undisputed between the parties that the author has been diagnosed with depression. It notes that in several medical certificates submitted by the author before the domestic authorities she was noted as undergoing treatment for severe depression, which was assessed to include a risk of severe or lifethreatening complications,21 with the medical treatment she was undergoing described as essential and the risk of relapse assessed to be grave without adequate care. 22 The Committee notes that the parties disagree on the severity of the author’s health condition and whether it is lasting in nature, and it notes the State party’s argument that the domestic authorities assessed her ill health and suicidal ideation to be primarily linked to her disappointment at her asylum process, her unclear situation and her fear of being expelled. The Committee, however, considers that, taking into account that the author submitted several medical certificates before domestic authorities in which her health condition was assessed as severe and life-threatening without the treatment she is receiving in the State party, the State party authorities, in the light of the information available during the domestic proceedings, should have assessed whether the author would in fact be able to access adequate medical care if removed to Iraq. The Committee further observes that it is undisputed between the parties that the domestic authorities did not assess whether the author would be able to access such medical care in Iraq. The Committee therefore considers that the failure by the domestic authorities to assess this risk facing the author in the light of the information available to them concerning the author’s state of health amounted to a violation of her rights under article 15 of the Convention. 7.9 In the light of these findings, the Committee considers it not necessary to separately consider the author’s claims under article 10 of the Convention.23 C. Conclusion and recommendations 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. The Committee therefore makes the following recommendations to the State party: (a) Concerning the author, the State party is under an obligation to: (i) Provide her with an effective remedy, including compensation for any legal costs incurred in filing the present communication; 21 22 23 10 Medical certificates dated 29 and 31 January 2018 (see para. 2.4). Medical certificate of 4 December 2018 (see para. 2.6). European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium, para. 207; and European Court of Human Rights, D. v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 30240/96, judgment, 2 May 1997, para. 59.