CRC/C/85/D/56/2018 Court established that the State Secretariat for Migration had not abused its discretion by refusing to accept that there were humanitarian reasons which could justify the processing of applications for international protection whose examination did not fall under its competence, within the meaning of article 29 (a) (3) of the Asylum Ordinance No. 1 of 11 August 1999 relating to procedure and in connection with article 17 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation. 4.3 Following the attempted deportation on 12 September 2018, the author was questioned by the unit for the repatriation of foreign nationals of the Ticino cantonal police.6 She explained that she had refused to board the flight to Italy because she did not know anyone there. On 2 March 2019, the author’s husband arrived in Switzerland and applied for asylum. The author’s claims concerning the attempted transfer gave rise to two parliamentary procedural requests at the cantonal level and a report by the author’s lawyer to the Cantonal Council of Ticino, which oversees the cantonal police. The Cantonal Council expressed its views on the matter in its reply of 7 November 2018. It recalled that all asylum decisions fall within the exclusive competence of the State Secretariat for Migration and, in the event of an appeal, the Federal Administrative Court. The Cantonal Council also noted that, given the limits of its competence and for reasons of data protection and professional secrecy, it could not rule on individual cases, but set out the manner in which deportation decisions were enforced, without going into the details of the author’s case. 4.4 The State party contests the author’s description of the attempted deportation of 12 September 2018 and contends that the cantonal police acted in accordance with the procedures established at the national level and in compliance with the principles of legality and proportionality. The State party refers to a report of 19 September 2018 by the unit for the repatriation of foreign nationals of the Ticino cantonal police and to the response of the Cantonal Council of 7 November 2018. 4.5 As to the author’s allegations concerning the shock of the night-time transfer, the State party submits that she had been duly informed that the transfer was imminent. 7 It had been necessary to organize the author’s deportation without informing her in detail of the procedure because she had not left Switzerland of her own accord within the deadline set by the State Secretariat for Migration in its decision of 20 July 2018. The time of the transfer was dependent on the time of the flight booked by swissREPAT, the specialized federal service of the State Secretariat for Migration. The State party denies that the police entered the author’s accommodation by breaking and entering. According to the police report, the police entered the guesthouse at 1.45 a.m. and knocked on the door. The author opened the door and the police officers introduced themselves, explaining why they were there. The author packed the suitcases of her own accord and had the opportunity to call her lawyer. 4.6 With regard to the author’s request of 7 September 2018 for postponement of the deportation, the State party notes that the cantonal authorities submitted the medical certificates produced by the author to the doctor appointed by the State Secretariat for Migration, who found that there were no contraindications to the family’s deportation to Italy. The certificates indicated that the children were in good health and that the medical tests did not show a risk of contagion of chickenpox. 4.7 The State party contests the author’s allegations that the police were insensitive towards the children, threatened their mother in front of them and showed them a photo of a transfer by special flight. During the pre-departure interview, the police at Zurich airport showed the author (and not the children) a photo of a person who had been subjected to coercive measures on a special flight. The State party indicates that the police at Zurich airport show all persons preparing to take a voluntary return flight photographs of the measures provided for in the federal protocols in the event of refusal to leave. These coercive measures are taken on special flights and not on scheduled flights. The State party 6 7 6 Minutes of the hearing of 15 October 2018. On 17 August 2018, the family was transferred from the civil protection centre in Biasca to the Della Santa guesthouse in Viganello pending the transfer to Italy. On 23 August 2018, the author and her children underwent a medical examination to assess their fitness to travel by air. GE.20-14363