CRC/C/87/D/86/2019 6.4 With respect to the argument that medical treatment is not affordable, the State party notes that free access to health care is a priority of the Government of Sri Lanka. 6 Furthermore, the author claimed before the Swiss authorities that he would like to be able to work and be financially independent. The State party notes that the author lived and worked in Colombo before leaving the country, has received academic and vocational training and speaks Sinhalese. He is therefore able to earn a living in Sri Lanka and support G.R. In addition, the author and his family can apply for return assistance in the form of 1,000 Swiss francs per adult and 500 Swiss francs per minor, as well as additional financial assistance of up to 3,000 Swiss francs to finance an individual reintegration project. For special reintegration needs, additional assistance of up to 5,000 Swiss francs and, in cases of health problems, medical assistance upon return may be granted.7 The author may also turn to the Sri Lankan authorities if necessary. The State party concludes that the return of G.R. would not amount to a violation of the Convention. 6.5 Recalling the principle of non-refoulement, 8 the State party argues that the State Secretariat for Migration has examined, from the point of view of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, whether medical problems are an obstacle to the removal of G.R. It has referred to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and concluded that the very exceptional cases that may raise an issue under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights correspond to a high threshold for the application of this provision in cases concerning the removal of seriously ill foreigners. The State Secretariat for Migration concluded in the end that Colombo had sufficient medical facilities. Considering that the necessary medical care is available and affordable in Sri Lanka and that there is no real, serious and concrete risk to G.R.’s health, the State party considers that his removal would not violate the principle of non-refoulement. Lastly, Sri Lanka is also a party to the Convention and if the petitioner believes that Sri Lanka is in breach of its obligations towards G.R., he will be able to pursue his claims with the Sri Lankan authorities. Authors’ additional comments on the State party’s observations 7.1 In his comments of 16 June 2020, the author claims that his A1-level French courses did not enable him to understand a legal decision on his own, let alone draft an appeal. Furthermore, the decision of the State Secretariat for Migration of 24 April 2019 states that the use of an appeal will not have suspensive effect. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, any appeal that does not suspend the execution of the removal decision cannot be considered effective.9 Article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 7.2 The author notes that, according to the Committee, article 3 (1) of the Convention is directly applicable and can be invoked before a court.10 7.3 The author takes issue with the assertion that it was the failure to observe the statutory time limit of 30 days since the discovery of grounds for review that had prevented the State Secretariat for Migration from considering the request for review. He points out that, according to the jurisprudence of the Federal Administrative Court, the discovery of the grounds for reconsideration implies that the applicant has sufficiently reliable knowledge of the new fact and the medical problems to be able to invoke them, and it must be possible to offer proof of this by producing a medical certificate. The diagnosis of hypothyroidism was made on 24 January 2019, but at that time the parents could not realize the full implications. A medical certificate was required to prove this new fact. Given that the 12 March 2019 6 7 8 9 10 6 World Health Organisation, “Primary health care systems (PRIMASYS): case study from Sri Lanka”, abridged version (2017), p. 3. See www.sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/international-rueckkehr/rueckkehrhilfe/individuelle-rkh.html. The State party refers to joint general comment No. 3 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017), para. 45, and general comment No. 6 (2005) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, para. 27. N.B.F. v. Spain (CRC/C/79/D/11/2017), para. 11.3. General comment No. 14 (2013), para. 6 (a).