CRPD/C/24/D/49/2018 6.4 The Committee refers to its jurisprudence in O.O.J. et al. v. Sweden10 and N.L. v. Sweden,11 in which it noted that the removal by a State party of an individual to a jurisdiction where he or she would risk facing violations of the Convention could, under certain circumstances, engage the 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 article 15 of the Convention.12 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. 6.5 The Committee also notes the author’s argument that the State party has not specified in what way the communication is insufficiently substantiated. However, the State party has observed the absence of a well-known general risk in Afghanistan for persons with the author’s type of disability. The Committee notes that the Swedish authorities considered that the author’s claimed experience of mistreatment on the ground of his disability was vague and not substantiated. Furthermore, it had been found that the author was unaware of why he had been subjected to sexual abuse, that the events had occurred a long time ago and that he would be able to evade any risk by relocating, given his history of gainful employment and education. The Committee considers moreover that the author has provided no concrete reasons that allow for the conclusion that his removal to Afghanistan would amount to a violation of his rights under the Convention because of his health status. In this connection, the Committee also notes that the medical certificate in support of the author’s claims, in particular the need to address his post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms or regarding his suicidal thoughts, was submitted by the author only in the context of the present communication but had not previously been brought to the attention of the competent domestic authorities. 6.6 Overall, the Committee notes the author’s disagreement with the domestic assessment made but considers that he has not provided any concrete reasons for considering that the competent authorities’ assessment, including with respect to the alleged risk arising out of his disability, alleged difficulties in finding work, need for health care, Hazara ethnicity, nonmarital birth and lack of social network and the claimed consequences of the length of his residence in Sweden, was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, and in the absence of any other element of pertinence on file, the Committee considers that the communication is inadmissible as insufficiently substantiated under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol. C. Conclusion 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 10 11 12 8 Ibid. CRPD/C/23/D/60/2019, para. 6.4. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 12.