CRC/C/87/D/86/2019 part of the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.15 It thus declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 7 (c) of the Optional Protocol. 10.4 With respect to the reference to article 4 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that this article sets out general obligations that can be invoked only in conjunction with other rights of the Convention in the context of the individual communications procedure under the Optional Protocol. 16 The Committee considers that, in the communication under examination, the complaint under this article is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Furthermore, the Committee notes that no specific complaints were made regarding H.R.’s schooling in Switzerland. Similarly, the author briefly mentions the fear of returning to Sri Lanka for political reasons but does not substantiate this point. The Committee considers that these facts are not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility under article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol and declares them inadmissible. 10.5 The Committee considers, however, that the communication appears to raise substantive issues under the Convention insofar as it relates to the decision to deport the family to Sri Lanka in the context of G.R.’s medical treatment. The Committee considers that this part of the communication is sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, in the light of the complaints under article 3 of the Convention, and that the author’s references to G.R.’s development, his right to medication and the principle of nonrefoulement are to be understood in reference to articles 6 (2), 24 and 37 (a) of the Convention, respectively. 10.6 The Committee takes note of the State party’s arguments that articles 3 and 4 of the Convention do not provide a basis for individual rights whose violation can be invoked before the Committee. The Committee recalls that the best interests of the child, as enshrined in article 3 of the Convention, is a threefold concept that is at the same time a substantive right, an interpretative principle and a rule of procedure. The Committee notes that, under article 5 (1) (a) of the Optional Protocol, individual communications may be submitted against a State party to the Convention by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals claiming to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee considers that there is nothing in article 5 (1) (a) of the Optional Protocol to suggest a limited approach to the rights whose violation may be invoked in the individual communications procedure. The Committee also recalls that it has in the past ruled on alleged violations of article 3 of the Convention invoked under the individual communications mechanism.17 Thus, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it is sufficiently substantiated and proceeds to examine the merits. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 10 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee notes the author’s argument that the decision to remove his family to Sri Lanka violates the principle of non-refoulement because G.R. will not be able to gain access to treatment for congenital hypothyroidism there, a situation that was allegedly not duly taken into account by the State Secretariat for Migration. It also notes that the State party submits that hypothyroidism is a common disease, that, according to the information available, treatment for hypothyroidism is available in Sri Lanka and that the author will be able to support his family through gainful employment and the possibility of financial or material assistance. Furthermore, the author does not demonstrate, according to the State party, that it would not be possible for G.R. to obtain treatment there. 11.3 The Committee recalls that States must not return a child to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm to the child, such 15 16 17 U.A.I. v. Spain (CRC/C/73/D/2/2015), para. 4.4; Y and Z v. Finland (CRC/C/81/D/6/2016), para. 9.3. A.S. v. Denmark (CRC/C/82/D/36/2017), para. 9.9. M.T. v. Spain (CRC/C/82/D/17/2017), para. 12.5; C.R. v. Paraguay (CRC/C/83/D/30/2017), para. 7.5; J.A.B. v. Spain (CRC/C/81/D/22/2017), para. 12.5; E.A. and U.A. v. Switzerland (CRC/C/85/D/56/2018), para. 6.7. 9