CERD/C/84/D/50/2012 barred and that the other matters did not relate to criminal offences, given the powers of action and decision legally vested in the Migrant Reception Office. In particular, the Court found that, under the Cantonal Act on Assistance to Asylum Seekers and Other Categories of Foreign Nationals of 7 March 2006, the Migrant Reception Office was required to ensure that the use to which the premises it made available, were put complied with the law on land use and construction, and also with the decision on accommodation, and that, to that end, it was authorized to carry out checks; moreover, unannounced visits to premises were allowed. 2.17 On 8 August 2011 the petitioner brought a criminal appeal in the Federal Supreme Court, repeating his complaints against the Migrant Reception Office and claiming racial discrimination in his access to fundamental rights. He sought effective proceedings and a thorough investigation, a finding of violation of his fundamental rights and compensation for moral and physical damage in the amount of CHF 2,000. On 18 August 2011 the Federal Supreme Court found the appeal inadmissible as insufficiently substantiated. Among other things the Court found that, according to the law, the appeal had to be substantiated on the merits, with the appellant required to state briefly in what respect the contested decision violated the law; that the Cantonal Court had found that the Migrant Reception Office had acted in accordance with its mandate insofar as the law authorized it to carry out checks and make unannounced visits to premises; that the applicant had provided no arguments on that ground; that the petitioner had cited provisions granting particular rights to persons with refugee status; that those provisions (like those of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which the petitioner had not cited at the cantonal level) were without relevance to the application of criminal law; and that the petitioner could avail himself of administrative remedies to contest the decisions taken against him. The complaint 3. In the petitioner’s view, the State party authorities categorize persons seeking refugee status with reference to their background, their political and religious beliefs, their intellectual ability and any future plans they may have. The decisions and attitudes of the authorities with power to control his access to the labour market, medical treatment and training, to interfere in his private life and even to discredit him with any other body, are directly related to his origins, his integrity, his background and his personality. The petitioner deplores the fact that his treatment is not the same as the treatment given to the rest of the population, and also that, notwithstanding his many complaints to various institutions, there has been no enquiry into the action taken against him by the authorities. The petitioner therefore argues that the authorities’ behaviour towards him constitutes a violation by the State party of articles 1 (para. 1), 2 (para. 2), 4 (subpara. (c)), 5 (subparas. (a), (b) and (d) (i) and (iii) to (v)), 6 and 7 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 31 August 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It states that the petitioner applied for asylum in Switzerland on 11 August 1997. The application was rejected by the Federal Office for Refugees on the grounds that the petitioner did not meet the definition of refugee under article 3 of the Federal Asylum Act. The Federal Office for Refugees found that the principle of non-refoulement did not apply in his case and that there was no reason to believe that he ran any risk if he returned to his country. Nevertheless, following a review of all the circumstances, it was felt that it would not be reasonable to enforce the decision to return him to Somalia or a third State. On 5 January 1999, therefore, the Federal Office for Refugees granted him temporary admission. The petitioner appealed the decision and the 6 GE.14-41526