CRPD/C/25/D/58/2019 6.3 The State party refers to Z. v. Australia,11 in which the Human Rights Committee established that the author’s medical condition was not of such an exceptional nature as to trigger the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The State party also refers to the judgment in Paposhvili v. Belgium, in which the European Court of Human Rights found that in similar cases, only very exceptional circumstances may raise an issue under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.12 The State party invites the Committee to follow the same standard in the course of its review in the present case, and underlines that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities cannot place an obligation on States parties to alleviate disparities in the level of treatment available in the sending State compared to that of the receiving State, which would place an excessive burden on States parties. 6.4 In the present case, the State party argues that its migration authorities did assess whether medical care and medicines would be available for the complainant in Afghanistan. Therefore his health status, as described in the medical records that were submitted, was taken into consideration by the authorities. However, they found that the information before them did not demonstrate that the author’s medical condition was of such an exceptional nature that his expulsion would run counter to the State party’s human rights obligations. The State party submits that there is 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. In addition, the State party notes that the European Court of Human Rights has, on several occasions, stated that suicide threats by rejected asylum seekers should not prevent States from enforcing the expulsion order, provided that measures have been taken to eliminate such risks. The State party submits that it is confident that the expulsion order in the present case will be enforced in a manner that minimizes the suffering of the author, taking into account his mental condition. Furthermore, it considers that the author failed to sufficiently substantiate his position that he would be unable to reintegrate in his country of origin and make use of the social support system in Afghanistan after having lived for more than 10 years abroad. 6.5 In addition, the State party notes that it does not wish to underestimate the author’s mental health problems and the concerns that may legitimately be expressed in relation to the shortcomings of the available health-care infrastructure in Afghanistan. However, in view of the above, it concludes that the author has not shown that his medical condition is of such an exceptional nature that his removal to Afghanistan would violate his rights under articles 10 or 15 of the Convention. 6.6 Regarding the author’s claims under article 12 of the Convention, the State party notes that the author has not specified in what way the domestic asylum proceedings should have been adjusted in order to take into account his medical condition. Nor has the complainant clarified in what way the domestic authorities’ assessments may have been affected by the lack of such adaptations. The State party reiterates that the author was appointed a public counsel who assisted him throughout the proceedings. He was able to submit written observations and participated in oral interviews. In addition, the complainant was able to submit medical reports. The State party therefore finds that the author was able to present his case in a satisfactory manner. 6.7 The State party further notes that the author’s claim under article 13 of the Convention that the migration authorities, in their assessment, ignored the fact that he had been diagnosed 11 12 CCPR/C/111/D/2049/2011, para. 9.5. The State party notes that, in that case, the author suffered from chronic heart disease, which had required several bypass operations and might require another operation in the future. He had also been considered to be at a high risk of suicide and suffered from a major depressive disorder characterized by pervasive sadness, insomnia, anorexia and weight loss. The author notes that, according to this judgment, “very exceptional circumstances” 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 (para. 183). 7