CRPD/C/25/D/58/2019 Regarding the author’s allegation that his asylum application was assessed only against the information that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, the Committee considers that this claim is closely linked to those presented under articles 10 and 15 of the Convention, and will examine it under those articles. 9.6 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 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information that it has received, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 73 (1) of its rules of procedure. 10.2 The Committee recalls that article 10 of the Convention stipulates that States parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others. The Committee also recalls that under article 15 of the Convention, State parties shall 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. 10.3 The Committee notes that, in its general comment No. 31 (2004), the Human Rights Committee refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where 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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (para. 12). It also notes that the Human Rights Committee has indicated in its jurisprudence that the risk must be personal 17 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.18 The Human 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.19 10.4 The Committee further recalls its decision in N.L. v. Sweden,20 in which the it found a violation of article 15 of the Convention on account of the State party’s failure to assess whether the author would be able to access medical care in Iraq corresponding to her diagnosis, even though she submitted several medical certificates before domestic authorities in which her health condition was assessed as severe and life-threatening without the treatment she was receiving in the State party. The Committee notes that in that decision, reference was made to the relevant jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, 21 the Committee against Torture22 and the European Court of Human Rights. 23 The Committee notes that the general principles established in those decisions were reiterated in N.L. v. Sweden (paras 7.3–7.5) and remain relevant in the assessment of the present case. 10.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the author’s claims that, by deporting him to Afghanistan, the State party would violate his rights under articles 10 and 15 of the 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 10 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. 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 CRPD/C/23/D/60/2019. Abdilafir Abubakar Ali et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014), para. 7.8. Harun v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/758/2016), paras. 9.7–9.11. European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium, paras. 173–174. See also European Court of Human Rights, Savran v. Denmark, in which the Court held that removing the applicant to Turkey without the receipt by the Danish authorities of sufficient and individual assurances on his care in Turkey would violate article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.