CRC/C/85/D/56/2018 rejects the author’s allegation that her children were subjected to abuse or degrading treatment. 4.8 The State party challenges the admissibility of part of the communication, invoking article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol. In the author’s appeal filed on 31 July 2018 with the Federal Administrative Court, reference is made to the family’s time spent living in Switzerland, the ties forged in Switzerland, the alleged procedural flaw when obtaining the visa in Baku, the author’s health problems and the reception conditions in Italy. Although the best interests of the children were briefly mentioned, the claims relating to the attempted deportation on 12 September 2018, in particular the alleged degrading treatment experienced by E.A. and U.A., were not raised before the national authorities. The author did not use the remedies available to her, including criminal proceedings, to pursue this complaint. The State party emphasizes that the national authorities did not have the opportunity to take into account the medical certificates and reports from psychotherapists that were drawn up after the Federal Administrative Court’s decision of 8 August 2018. Consequently, the State party considers that the claims of violations of articles 2, 3, 6 (2) and 22 of the Convention in relation to the attempted removal of 12 September 2018, as well as articles 24 and 37, are inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.9 The State party further submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol, which applies to all communications that are manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated. 4.10 The State party considers that a distinction should be drawn between the provisions of the Convention that are directly applicable and a violation of which can be alleged, and those that are not. 8 Directly applicable provisions are those that are unconditional and sufficiently clear and precise as to be applied as such in a given case. Other provisions contain “general programmes” and leave States parties considerable room for manoeuvre. Such provisions are often formulated as a recognition of a child’s particular “right”. However, whether these “rights” can form the basis for a justiciable claim against the authorities is first and foremost a question of national law. 4.11 With regard to article 2 (2) of the Convention, the State party considers that this provision is not directly applicable and does not confer any rights that individuals could claim. The State party submits that there has been no violation of this provision, given that the author has not presented any arguments to that effect. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 5 (2003), in which it recognized that the prohibition of discrimination does not mean identical treatment for all. 4.12 The State party notes that article 3 of the Convention establishes a guiding principle that must be respected in the enactment and interpretation of laws, but does not establish any subjective rights. The State party adds that it is not for the Committee to interpret domestic law and assess the facts and evidence in place of the national authorities. 9 The State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court examined the situation of the author and her children E.A. and U.A. and noted that their desire to remain in Switzerland did not influence the determination of which State was competent to examine their asylum application. The State Secretariat and the Court noted that Italy did not have systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers that would entail a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Consequently, the application of the second subparagraph of article 3 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation was not justified. The Swiss authorities found that the guarantees provided by Italy were sufficiently concrete and individualized and that there was no specific evidence to call into question its ability to accommodate the family, guarantee it adequate housing and preserve its unity. The State Secretariat for Migration noted that the family could benefit in Italy from the Protection System for Refugees and Asylum Seekers. The Court also examined this point and concluded that the State Secretariat had not committed any abuse of its discretion in 8 9 GE.20-14363 The State party submits that in the original version of the general guidelines regarding the form and contents of periodic reports to be submitted by States parties under article 44 (1) (b), of the Convention of 11 October 1996 (CRC/C/58), the Committee recognized that not all provisions of the Convention are directly applicable. C.E. v. Belgium (CRC/C/79/D/12/2017), para. 8.4. 7