CRPD/C/23/D/60/2019 Rights Committee has emphasized in its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State, and that it is generally for the organs of States to review or evaluate the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.15 7.4 The Committee further notes the findings of the Human Rights Committee in Abdilafir Abubakar Ali and Mayul Ali Mohamad v. Denmark. In that case, the Human Rights Committee recalled that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk that a person might face if deported, and it also considered that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the authors in that case would face if removed, including access to adequate medical care.16 The Committee further notes the findings of the Committee against Torture in Adam Harun v. Switzerland in which that Committee found that the failure by the State party authorities to undertake an individualized assessment of the personal and real risk the complainant would face if removed, taking due account of his particular vulnerability including his health status, constituted a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture. 17 7.5 The Committee notes the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Paposhvili v. Belgium,18 in which the Court noted that the removal of a person in need of ongoing medical care could in “very exceptional cases” raise an issue under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court noted that this should be understood to refer to situations involving the removal of a seriously ill person in which substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she, although not at imminent risk of dying, would face a real risk, on account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy. The Court noted that it is for the applicant to adduce evidence capable of demonstrating that there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment if removed. Where such evidence is adduced, it is for the authorities of the returning State, in the context of domestic procedures, to dispel any doubts raised in the course of which the authorities in the returning State must consider the foreseeable consequences of removal for the individual concerned in the receiving State, in the light of the general situation there and the individual’s personal circumstances. The assessment of the risk must therefore take into consideration general sources, such as reports of the World Health Organization or of reputable non-governmental organizations, and the medical certificates concerning the person in question.19 As regards the factors to be taken into consideration, the Court noted that the authorities in the returning State must verify on a case-by-case basis whether the care generally available in the receiving State is sufficient and appropriate in practice for the treatment of the applicant’s illness. The authorities must also consider the extent to which the individual in question will actually have access to care and facilities in the receiving State.20 7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes the author’s claims that by deporting her to Iraq, the State party would violate her rights under articles 10 and 15 of the Convention, as her removal would lead to a grave risk of suicide, as well as other serious risks to her life and health. It notes her information that she has been diagnosed with severe depression with psychotic features and that she has twice been committed for treatment under the 15 16 17 18 19 20 See, e.g., K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.4; and Z.H. v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. Abdilafir Abubakar Ali and Mayul Ali Mohamad v. Denmark (CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014), para. 7.8. Adam Harun v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/758/2016), paras. 9.7–9.11. European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium, Application No. 41738/10, judgment, 13 December 2016, paras. 173–174. See also European Court of Human Rights, Savran v. Denmark, Application No. 57467/15, judgment, 1 October 2019, in which the Court held that removing the applicant to Turkey without the receipt by Danish authorities of sufficient and individual assurances on his care in Turkey would violate article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium, paras. 183–187. Ibid., paras. 189–190. 9