CRC/C/87/D/86/2019 as, but by no means limited to, those contemplated under articles 6 and 37 of the Convention. The assessment of the risk of such serious violations should be conducted in an age- and gender-sensitive manner and should, for example, take into account the particularly serious consequences for children of the insufficient provision of food or health services. 18 The risk of such a serious violation should be assessed in accordance with the principle of precaution and, where reasonable doubts exist that the receiving State cannot protect the child against such risks, States parties should refrain from deporting the child. 19 The best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in decisions concerning the deportation of a child and such decisions should ensure – within a procedure with proper safeguards – that the child will be safe, will be provided with proper care and will enjoy his or her rights. 11.4 The Committee also recalls that it is for the national authorities to examine the facts and evidence and to interpret and enforce domestic law, unless their assessment has been clearly arbitrary or amounts to a denial of justice. It is therefore not for the Committee to assess the facts of the case and the evidence instead of the national authorities but to ensure that their assessment was not arbitrary or tantamount to a denial of justice and that the best interests of the children were a primary consideration in that assessment.20 In the present case, the Committee notes that, in its decision of 24 April 2019, the State Secretariat for Migration examined the particular circumstances in which the author and his family were to be removed to Colombo. In this respect, the State Secretariat for Migration noted that Colombo had sufficient medical facilities, including public hospitals and private clinics, to treat G.R. The Committee considers that, in view of the information in the file, it cannot conclude that this evaluation was manifestly arbitrary or equivalent to a denial of justice, or that G.R.’s best interests as a child were not a primary consideration in this evaluation. 11.5 Furthermore, the Committee notes that, when considering the risk that G.R. would face upon return to Sri Lanka, the State Secretariat for Migration relied on information indicating that the Sri Lankan authorities are aware of the fact that congenital hypothyroidism causes intellectual disabilities and that they have introduced a national screening programme and guidelines for the treatment of this disease. The State party also refers to information published by the Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine of Sri Lanka. This information not only provides guidance to the various health institutions in Sri Lanka on the screening for congenital hypothyroidism, but also indicates that treatment is simple, inexpensive, effective and available in the public and private health systems. 11.6 The Committee considers that the principle of non-refoulement does not confer a right to remain in a country solely on the basis of a difference in health services that may exist between the State of origin and the State of asylum, or to continue medical treatment in the State of asylum, unless such treatment is essential for the life and proper development of the child and would not be available and accessible in the State of return. In the present case, the Committee observes that, on the basis of the information on file, G.R.’s treatment, which is essential for his development, is available and accessible in Sri Lanka. Thus, the Committee concludes that G.R.’s removal to Sri Lanka would not result in obstacles to gaining access to the treatment he needs and would not constitute a violation by the State party of his rights under articles 3, 6 (2), 24 or 37 (a) of the Convention. However, the Committee recalls that in cases of children being returned to their countries of origin, effective reintegration measures should be taken, including immediate protection measures, in particular to ensure effective access to health.21 11.7 The Committee, acting under article 10 (5) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of articles 3, 6 (2), 24 or 37 (a) of the Convention. 18 19 20 21 10 General comment No. 6 (2005), para. 27. K.Y.M. v. Denmark (CRC/C/77/D/3/2016), para. 11.8; X.C., L.G. and W.G. v. Denmark (CRC/C/85/D/31/2017), para. 8.3. C.E. v. Belgium (CRC/C/79/D/12/2017), para. 8.4; E.A. and U.A. v. Switzerland, para. 7.2. 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. 32 (k).