CRC/C/85/D/56/2018 nucleus. The non-application of this clause in favour of minors who have already experienced serious trauma, whose only sources of support, outside their country of origin, are in Switzerland, represents inhuman and degrading treatment. The State party has violated E.A. and U.A.’s peace of mind since the moment it failed to take into account the emotional and psychological repercussions that their removal to Italy might have on them. 5.2 On 10 December 2018, the author submitted a complaint concerning the circumstances of the transfer on 12 September 2018 to the Cantonal Council of Ticino and a petition to the Grand Council of Ticino The author argues that while it is the responsibility of the State Secretariat for Migration to assess the enforceability and feasibility of removal, such an assessment relates only to the minimum guarantees of reception in the country of removal, but not to the manner in which the removal will be carried out. The author stresses, however, that her communication is not based on the removal attempt of 12 September 2018, but on the decision of the State Secretariat to apply the Dublin III Regulation without taking into account the welfare and best interests of E.A. and U.A. 5.3 The author contests the State party’s assertion that the asylum authorities were not given the opportunity to examine the medical certificates. Upon receipt of the medical certificates on 7 September 2018, the author sent them to the Office for Migration, the body competent at the cantonal level for carrying out deportations by order of the State Secretariat for Migration. 5.4 The author accepts that some provisions of the Convention are not directly applicable. However, she finds the State party’s assertion that the indirect applicability of a norm of the Convention is not a reason to claim its violation before the Committee absolutely absurd. 5.5 The author contests the State party’s allegation that her communication is illfounded. She explains that the removal of 12 September 2018 is not the only reason for the communication. The author contests the facts contained in the police report referred to by the State party, which she claims is biased. She considers that the State party cannot base its claims on the Cantonal Council’s reply, since it is a general text that does not concern her specific case. She adds that the replies of the Cantonal Council are written by the units concerned, in this case by the police itself. 5.6 The author notes that on 17 August 2018, her family was transferred from the civil protection centre in Biasca, a “bunker” whose structure was not considered adequate for reception, to the Della Santa guesthouse in Viganello. The SOS-Ticino association prepared E.A.’s school enrolment. Although the family were supposed to be awaiting a transfer to Italy, E.A. and U.A., who had been moved from a bunker, settled into a guesthouse and enrolled in school, could not have understood that this was only a temporary situation. 5.7 The author insists that the arrival of the police on the night of 12 September 2018 at the Della Santa guesthouse was unexpected, as no one had notified the family of the removal through an interpreter. The family were convinced that their stay in Switzerland would be long since E.A. had been enrolled in school and had attended his first day. Although the police officers explained in Italian what was going to happen, the author could not fully understand what they were saying and had difficulty expressing herself. The author’s lawyer informed the police that she refused to board the plane and that a suspension of the flight had been requested on medical grounds. Therefore, the State party’s assertion that the author packed her bags of her own accord is “a pure lie”. The author points out that she did not claim that the police had broken into her accommodation. The inhuman and degrading treatment was caused by the shock of being woken in the middle of the night, the requirement that the family pack their personal belongings, and the fact that discussions between the police and the author took place without an interpreter and in the presence of the two frightened children. It is true that the author and her children had not left Switzerland within the established deadline, but it is equally true that after that deadline, it was the Swiss authorities that had assigned them new accommodation and enrolled E.A. in school. 5.8 The author regrets that neither the police report nor the State party’s observations mention the fact that the children were frightened and crying, or that the police at Zurich 10 GE.20-14363