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