CRC/C/85/D/56/2018 September 2018 the police came to pick up the author, E.A. and U.A. from their hotel in order to carry out their removal on a 7.30 a.m. flight from Zurich airport. The police officers showed the children a photo of a forced removal (images of people who had been restrained), telling them that if their mother did not cooperate, they would be removed in the same way. The author had panic attacks and a severe anxiety attack, as a result of which the removal could not be carried out. The police abandoned the author and her children at Zurich airport, with no money, and told them to “make their own way back” to Ticino. 2.10 The author submitted a certificate, dated 17 September 2018, issued by a psychologist-psychotherapist from the Baobab centre on the basis of an interview with E.A. According to the certificate, when E.A. spoke about the attempted removal to Italy, he looked down, withdrew, spoke of the “need to protect his mother by dealing directly with the police”, and mentioned “several moments of intense fear when in contact with the police, such as when they were unexpectedly woken up in the middle of the night, the arrival at the airport, the police officer’s gruff tone, the photo of the restrained person, and the police’s attempt to make the mother feel guilty”. The certificate quotes statements made by E.A. collected by a speech therapist and an ethno-clinical therapist over the phone, according to which “since the night he was taken to Zurich airport, where he was subjected to very serious verbal and psychological abuse by the police officers,” E.A. has been waking up several times during the night crying for fear of being taken by the police. U.A. has also woken up crying and saying that some “nasty men wanted to take him away.” The certificate concluded that E.A. shows a heightened sense of responsibility for his younger brother and mother and is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. According to the certificate, E.A. and U.A. require medical and psychological support and their forced removal would pose a major risk to their mental health. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that by failing to take into account the vulnerability of E.A. and U.A. when adopting the decision not to consider the application and by acting in such a way as to infringe their rights at the time of the attempted removal, the State party violated its obligation to respect the rights set forth in the Convention, in accordance with article 2. 3.2 The author alleges that, in violation of article 3 of the Convention, no meaningful assessment of the best interests of the children was made by the State Secretariat for Migration or the Federal Administrative Court or during the attempted removal. The author argues that several medical reports and pedagogical assessments point to E.A. and U.A.’s need for stability. The authorities refused to seriously examine the possibility of applying the sovereignty clause of the Dublin III Regulation. The children were not given the opportunity to be heard. No specialized body was involved in the assessment of their best interests. Such an assessment is all the more necessary given that the case involves a vulnerable mother, whose husband is in prison for political reasons and who is experiencing anxiety as she herself is wanted in her country of origin. The author argues that coming to pick up the children without warning at 2 a.m., threatening their mother and intimidating them with a terrifying photo is contrary to the protection of the best interests of the children. E.A. and U.A. have been uprooted several times and need to stay in a safe place with people they know. The author refers to the decision A.N. v. Switzerland, in which the Committee against Torture held that the return of a victim of torture to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation would be in violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as the author would be deprived of his right to rehabilitation.3 The removal to Italy of the mother of two small children who had been threatened by the Azerbaijani authorities and beaten by unknown persons, probably connected with the State, is not in conformity with this jurisprudence. Finally, the author refers to the statements of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the problems related to migration in Italy.4 3 4 4 See A.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/742/2016). Office of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, “The Human Rights Council hears an update from the new High Commissioner for Human Rights”, 10 September 2018. GE.20-14363