CRC/C/85/D/56/2018 refusing to accept that there were humanitarian grounds within the meaning of article 29 (a) (3) of Order No. 1 of 11 August 1999. The Court noted that the applicants had not shown that Italy would not be willing to take charge and complete the procedure relating to their application for protection, or that Italy would not respect the principle of non-refoulement. It concluded that there was no evidence that the transfer to Italy would expose the applicants to the risk of being deprived of the minimum conditions for subsistence and of being subjected to undignified living conditions. The State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court recalled that, under Directive 2013/33/EU, Italy is required to provide applicants with the necessary health care, which includes emergency care and essential treatment of illnesses and of serious mental disorders. There was no evidence to suggest that Italy would refuse to provide the children and their mother with medical care. The Court took into account the report of 31 July 2018, which was not issued by a medical doctor. The Court found that the file did not contain any concrete and well-founded indication that the persons concerned suffered from health problems of such gravity that they could not be transferred to Italy. It noted that the file did not indicate that the author or her children required any psychiatric care. It specified that it was for the Swiss authorities responsible for carrying out the deportation to transmit to the Italian authorities information concerning any medical treatment required by the returnees. The Court concluded that the author had not provided any serious evidence to establish that the transfer to Italy would violate article 3 of the Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or that Italy would violate its obligation to provide the children with the protection and care necessary for their proper development. Contrary to the author’s allegations, the State Secretariat and the Court did consider to the possibility of applying the sovereignty clause of the Dublin III Regulation. The State Secretariat found that the children had no particular ties to Switzerland. They had been living there for less than two months at the time of the State Secretariat’s decision and their previous stay in Switzerland had been only eight months. The national authorities proceeded to examine the specific situation of the applicants, taking into account the interests of the children. 10 Nothing suggests that the consideration of the case by the national authorities was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice or that the best interests of the children were not taken into account in that assessment.11 In these circumstances, the State party considers that the claims raised under article 3 of the Convention are manifestly unfounded. 4.13 In the alternative, the State party contests the alleged violation of article 3 of the Convention. It highlights the difference between the present communication and the case in which the Committee found a violation of article 3 because of the failure to take into account the best interests of the child when assessing the risk of female genital mutilation if a girl was deported to Puntland.12 The State party points out that the best interests of the child is a principle to which Swiss case law attaches major importance when considering obstacles to the enforcement of a removal. This principle may lead to the removal of a minor being considered unenforceable if he or she is well integrated in Switzerland, in particular as a result of the relationships forged (proximity, intensity, duration), the stage and prognosis of his or her development and his or her education in the host country. In the present case, there is no question of E.A. and U.A being well integrated in Switzerland or having developed relationships that are important or decisive for their development. The children were 8 and 3 years old, respectively, at the time of the Federal Administrative Court’s decision. Their main reference person, on whom their harmonious development and education depends, is their mother. The State Secretariat for Migration only transfers families with minor children to Italy if it has been given individual guarantees from the Italian authorities. The Italian authorities have given assurances that the persons concerned will be provided with care appropriate to the age of the children and that the unity of the family will be preserved. As the author and her children never stayed in Italy, their allegations about the risks of violations of the Convention if returned to that country are hypothetical. At her hearing on 15 October 2018 by the unit for the repatriation of foreign nationals of the Ticino cantonal police, the only justification the author gave for her refusal 10 11 12 8 C.E. v. Belgium, para. 8.5. A.Y. v. Denmark (CRC/C/78/D/7/2016), para. 8.10. K.Y.M. v. Denmark (CRC/C/77/D/3/2016). GE.20-14363