CRC/C/87/D/86/2019
returning the author and his family to Sri Lanka while their case was under consideration by
the Committee.
1.3
On 22 October 2019, the working group on communications, acting on behalf of the
Committee, decided to reject the State party’s request that the admissibility of the
communication be considered separately from its merits.
Facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 30 June 2014, the author, V.R. and H.R. filed an application for asylum with the
State Secretariat for Migration of Switzerland, which, on 5 August 2015, rejected their
application and ordered their removal to Sri Lanka. An appeal to the Federal Administrative
Court was dismissed on 13 September 2016. On 3 March 2017, the European Court of Human
Rights declared the author’s application inadmissible.
2.2
On 29 March 2019, the author and his family submitted a request to the State
Secretariat for Migration for reconsideration of their asylum application, arguing that G.R.,
who was born two months earlier, would suffer irreparable harm upon his transfer to Sri
Lanka, in violation of articles 3 and 4 of the Convention. They submitted a medical certificate
dated 12 March 2019 from a paediatrician stating that at birth he was unable to maintain a
healthy body temperature and a week later he was diagnosed with congenital hypothyroidism,
which led to the initiation of hormone replacement therapy the same day. Various
examinations showed a completely inactive thyroid gland and slow bone growth. His
hormone treatment includes several mixed substances that he must take daily and for life.
According to the paediatrician, he will need blood tests. His treatment with Euthyrox will
need to be adjusted every three months and this care, crucial for his development and growth,
must be delivered by a specialist in paediatric endocrinology. If proper care cannot be
provided, either due to a lack of medical resources or a lack of financial resources, G.R. will
suffer irreversible damage, potentially to the point of not being able to be self-sufficient in
the future. The medical certificate also mentions that being sent to a country like Sri Lanka
without resources and without clear and secure organization of his medical care in advance
makes proper care almost impossible for this “extremely severe disease” if it is not properly
treated. The paediatrician says that her paediatric endocrinologist colleagues confirm how
dangerous it would be for G.R.’s future to be sent to a country “with so many uncertainties
about the possible care”.
2.3
In addition, the request for review referred to the fact that V.R. needs treatment for
her recurrent depressive disorder accompanied by psychotic symptoms (auditory
hallucinations). The request also referred to information indicating that access to health care
is not guaranteed in Sri Lanka and that treatment in private institutions is very expensive and
the costs are almost entirely borne by the patients. Moreover, although the services provided
by State institutions are generally free of charge, a whole series of expenses may still be
incurred. Often, the necessary drugs and equipment are not available in public institutions
and patients have to buy them from private pharmacies at a very high cost. In addition, the
public health sector is often unable to provide adequate treatment for chronic noncommunicable diseases. Affordable drugs and treatment are usually only available in public
medical facilities. The waiting lists for certain diagnostics are often very long. In addition,
the supply of free medicines is not ensured, as stocks often run out.
2.4
On 24 April 2019, the State Secretariat for Migration decided not to take up the request
for review on the grounds that the author and his family had not observed the rule that such
a request must be filed within 30 days of the discovery of the grounds for review, as they had
learned that G.R. was suffering from hypothyroidism on 24 January 2019. The State
Secretariat for Migration also noted that it had already ruled on the mental health of V.R. In
view of the mandatory nature of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), the State
Secretariat for Migration carried out a preliminary examination to determine whether the
application contained facts or grounds of considerable significance that could seriously raise,
from an objective point of view, the question of the existence of obstacles to the enforcement
of removal under international law. It recalled the framework established by the European
Court of Human Rights in N. v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 26565/05), D. v. the
United Kingdom (Application No. 30240/96) and Paposhvili v. Belgium (Application No.
2