CRC/C/87/D/86/2019 41738/10) and considered that the city of Colombo had sufficient medical facilities, including public hospitals and private clinics, to treat G.R. Thus, the State Secretariat for Migration concluded that there were no obstacles to the enforcement of their removal. Complaint 3.1 The author and his family argue that G.R. will not be able to obtain the necessary medical treatment for his hypothyroidism in Sri Lanka. Even if this treatment exists, the author will not be able to pay for it because it will be too expensive. He asks that G.R.’s right to medication in Switzerland be respected. They also argue that V.R. too needs to continue her medical treatment in Switzerland and have provided a certificate to show that she is receiving psychiatric care and psychotherapy. He also cites his own medical situation, referring to a medical certificate that mentions a “very likely” lack of access in Sri Lanka to the necessary care and medication for his type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and mixed urinary disorders. In addition, the family arrived in Switzerland when H.R. was two months old and he is now attending school in Switzerland. They remain fearful of returning to Sri Lanka for political reasons. 3.2 The author and his family argue that they were unable to submit the request for review within 30 days of the discovery of G.R.’s congenital hypothyroidism because of a delay in receiving the medical certificate and because they had difficulty communicating with the doctors in French. He did not appeal against the decision of 24 April 2019 because he could not afford a lawyer and the association that had helped him free of charge refused to draft an appeal. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its comments of 16 July 2019, the State party notes that, on 5 August 2015, the State Secretariat for Migration refused the application for asylum of the author, V.R. and H.R. on the grounds that their statements were not credible, a decision confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court on 13 September 2016. On 17 November 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration declared inadmissible an initial application for review of the decision on the grounds that documents from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, submitted as new facts, had not been submitted within the statutory 30-day period since the grounds for review had been discovered. In addition, a preliminary examination under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not found to present obstacles to the enforcement of removal. On 1 December 2016, the Federal Administrative Court quashed that decision on the grounds that the application should have been treated as a request for review but proceeded to declare the application inadmissible in view of the absence of new facts. 4.2 The State party notes that, on 16 November 2018, the State Secretariat for Migration refused to take up a second request for review, which was based on the author’s and V.R.’s medical problems and on the latter’s pregnancy, because the 30-day time limit had not been observed. On 13 December 2018, the Federal Administrative Court declared the appeal inadmissible, finding from the outset the request for review and the appeal to be frivolous. 4.3 The State party further notes that, following the submission of the third request for review and the inadmissibility decision of the State Secretariat for Migration of 24 April 2019, no appeal was lodged within the statutory time limit of five days. 4.4 The State party notes that the author appears to argue that the family’s removal would violate the rights of the child because of G.R.’s medical condition and his lifelong dependence on specific medicines and therapies that are not available or affordable in Sri Lanka. The rest of the communication refers to the author’s and V.R.’s health problems and to H.R.’s integration in Switzerland, without allowing for a connection to be drawn between these facts and the specific allegations regarding rights guaranteed under the Convention. 4.5 The State party argues that the communication is inadmissible because domestic remedies have not been exhausted given that no appeal was brought against the State Secretariat for Migration decision of 24 April 2019. The author has not claimed that he was unable, for excusable reasons, to comply with the time limit for appeal. Furthermore, he does not argue that an appeal to the Federal Administrative Court would not be effective. The decision of the State Secretariat for Migration duly states the reasons on which it is based and 3

Select target paragraph3