CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 his removal, such that the State party can be held responsible for such risks. The Committee accordingly declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.5 The Committee also notes the author’s arguments under article 6, but considers that they have been insufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and accordingly declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.6 The Committee considers that the remainder of the inadmissibility arguments raised by the State party are intimately linked to the merits and should thus be considered at that stage. 9.7 The Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under articles 2 (3), 7, 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant, and proceeds to their consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his removal from Canada to Jamaica has exposed him to a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 10.3 The Committee notes that the author arrived in Canada at the age of 18, where he lived continuously for 31 years, until his deportation to Jamaica on 29 August 2011; that in 1993, he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, a severe mental illness for which he was institutionalized for a year and a half, and subsequently continued to receive regular mental health treatment on an outpatient basis; that in 2005, after he was evicted from his apartment and started living in shelters, the author had difficulty complying with his medication, and experienced psychotic relapses; that on 23 March 2006, he was reported as inadmissible in Canada under section 44 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, on the grounds of serious criminality, in particular, his conviction in June 2005 for assault with a weapon, for which he received a sentence of 1 day in jail, in addition to 80 days served as pre-sentence custody. The Committee further notes that a causal connection between the author’s criminality and his illness was recognized in the decision of 22 April 2010 on his application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. 10.4 The Committee recalls that the aim of the provisions of article 7 is to protect both the dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual. 23 In the circumstances of the present case, and while recognizing States parties’ legitimate interest in protecting the general public, the Committee considers that the deportation to Jamaica of the author, a mentally ill person in need of special protection who has lived in Canada for most of his life, on account of criminal offences recognized to be related to his mental illness, and which has effectively resulted in the abrupt withdrawal of the medical and family support on which a person in his vulnerable position is necessarily dependent, constituted a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 10.5 Having found a violation of article 7, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claims under articles 17 and 23, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 23 14 See general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 2.