CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 from full public health care from 2013 onwards. The Committee further notes, however, that neither the changes made to the federal programme in 2014 nor the regularization of the author’s status could retroactively remedy the harm she actually suffered between 2006 and 2013 due to the denial of her access to health care appropriate to her medical condition.34 Accordingly, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is admissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 10.6 The Committee notes the State party’s contention that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the author has not exhausted available domestic remedies as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the author must exhaust, for the purpose of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, all judicial or administrative remedies that offer him or her a reasonable prospect of redress.35 The Committee takes note of the State party’s objection that the author has failed to seek monetary compensation before domestic courts when she challenged the constitutionality of IFHP. The author has, however, explained that she had exhausted domestic remedies for violation of her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She argues that under section 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter, courts may grant remedies to individuals for infringement of Charter rights which include, in certain circumstances, monetary compensation. The Committee notes the author’s assertion that since the Federal Court of Appeal found that the Charter had not been breached, she had no prospect of success for any claims of monetary compensation. It also notes the author’s submission that the courts would have had broad discretion to award appropriate and just remedies, including compensation, if the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal had upheld her allegations. 10.7 The Committee also notes the State party’s contention that the administration and provision of health-care services is the responsibility of the government of each province or territory and that the author should have requested remedies from the Province of Ontario. The State party also points out that the author could have challenged the constitutionality of the Ontario health insurance scheme. At the same time, the Committee notes the State party’s explanation (see para. 8.3.) that the author did not meet the conditions set out in the Ontario Health Insurance Act because she was not a legal resident of Ontario and therefore could not benefit from the provincial programme. The Committee also notes the author’s arguments and the opinion of the “group of leading experts” composed of nine Canadian law professors who believe that it was reasonable for the author to seek a remedy at the federal and not at the provincial level. The Committee notes in particular: (a) that while responsibility for health care may be shared between the provincial and the federal levels of government, federal institutions are responsible for the delivery of health care for certain categories of the population, including some categories of foreigners in an irregular situation; (b) that federal institutions are responsible for health care for immigrants in detention, rejected asylum seekers awaiting renewal of their immigration status at the border and expelled persons whose status renewal has been suspended due to the conditions of detention or insecurity prevailing in their country; and (c) that provincial legislation explicitly excludes from its jurisdiction all persons who do not have a right to lawfully reside in Canada and that such exclusion is confirmed by consistent jurisprudence of Canadian courts. As a result, remedies at the provincial level would have protracted the procedure unnecessarily, whereas the author was looking for an emergency solution. The State party does not explain how such remedies could have been effective in the author’s case. Consequently, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 10.8 Furthermore, the Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the author’s allegations of a violation of articles 2 (1) and (3) (a), 6, 7 and 9 (1) should be found incompatible with the Covenant under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 10.9 Concerning article 6, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the right to life cannot be interpreted as far as to impose on States a positive obligation to provide undocumented migrants with an optimal level of health insurance. The Committee recalls 34 35 See Dranichnikov v. Australia, para. 6.3; and A.P.L.-v.d.M. v. Netherlands, para. 6.3. See communication No. 437/1990, Patiño v. Panama (CCPR/C/52/D/437/1990), para. 5.2. 13