CRC/C/85/D/56/2018 rights whose violation can be invoked before the Committee. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the Convention recognizes the interdependence and equal importance of all rights (civil, political, economic, social and cultural) that enable all children to develop their mental and physical abilities, personalities and talents to the fullest extent possible. 13 It also recalls that the best interests of the child, as enshrined in article 3 of the Convention, is a threefold concept which is at the same time a substantive right, an interpretative principle and a rule of procedure.14 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 the articles invoked under the individual communications mechanism.15 6.6 The Committee considers that, although the author’s claims under article 24 of the Convention, according to which E.A. and U.A. would not receive in Italy the adequate and necessary psychological care for persons who have been subjected to ill-treatment, also appear to relate to alleged trauma experienced prior to the filing of the second asylum application, she does not produce any evidence to substantiate this allegation. Therefore, the Committee declares this claim manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 However, the Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her remaining claims under articles 3, 12 and 22 of the Convention for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present 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. 7.2 The Committee 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 in place 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.16 7.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that the State party has violated article 12 of the Convention because the national authorities did not hear E.A. and U.A. and did not take into account the reports and testimonies introduced during the proceedings. The Committee takes note of the State party’s arguments that E.A. and U.A. were not heard in view of their young age, the fact that the children’s interests coincided with those of their mother, and that they could exercise their right to be heard through the intermediary of their mother and their legal counsel. The Committee notes that article 12 of the Convention guarantees the right of the child to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative. It points out, however, that this article imposes no age limit on the right of the child to express her or his views, and that it discourages States parties from introducing age limits either in law or in practice that would restrict the child’s right to be heard in all matters affecting her or him. 17 The Committee does not agree with the State party’s argument that E.A. and U.A. did not need 13 14 15 16 17 GE.20-14363 Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 15 (2013), para. 7. Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 14 (2013), para. 6. 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; and J.A.B. v. Spain (CRC/C/81/D/22/2017), para. 12.5. C.E. v. Belgium, para. 8.4. Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 12 (2009), para. 21. 13