CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 result in loss of life. In particular, as a minimum, States parties have the obligation to provide access to existing health-care services that are reasonably available and accessible when lack of access to the health care would expose a person to a reasonably foreseeable risk that can result in loss of life. 11.4 The Committee notes the State party’s observations that the author was able to receive publicly funded medical care through access to hospital emergency care and was not prevented from obtaining primary health care from various community organizations, on a pro bono basis or on the basis of private health insurance. Due to the provision of such health care, the State party considers that it has fulfilled its obligations relative to the protection of the author’s right to life under article 6 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee notes, however, that both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal acknowledged that, despite the care she may have received, the author had been exposed to a serious threat to her life and health because she had been excluded from the benefits of IFHP. The Committee also notes the medical opinions submitted to this effect in the Federal Court proceedings (see para. 2.9). 11.5 In the light of the serious implications of the denial of IFHP health-care coverage to the author under the Program from July 2009 to April 2013, as evidenced in her communication and reviewed in detail by the Federal Courts, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 6. 11.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 26 that excluding her from IFHP coverage on the basis of her immigration status is not an objective, proportionate or reasonable means of deterring illegal immigration, in particular as her life-threatening health conditions were not taken into account. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that in allocating public health-care funding, it may reasonably differentiate between those with legal status in the country, including immigrants, and foreign nationals who have not been lawfully admitted to Canada and that legal residence is a neutral, objective requirement that cannot be considered as a prohibited ground of discrimination. 11.7 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 18 (1989) on non-discrimination, in which it reaffirmed that article 26 entitled all persons to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, prohibited any discrimination under the law and guaranteed to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (para. 1). While article 2 limits the scope of the rights to be protected against discrimination to those provided for in the Covenant, article 26 does not specify such limitations and prohibits discrimination in law or in fact in any field regulated and protected by public authorities. The Committee also recalls that in its general comment No. 15 (1986) on the position of aliens under the Covenant, it stated that the general rule was that each one of the rights of the Covenant must be guaranteed without discrimination between citizens and aliens. While the Covenant does not recognize the right of aliens to enter and reside in the territory of a State party, the Committee also stated that aliens had an “inherent right to life”. States therefore cannot make a distinction, for the purposes of respecting and protecting the right to life, between regular and irregular migrants. 38 More generally, the Committee also recalls that not every differentiation based on the grounds listed in article 26 amounts to discrimination, as long as it is based on reasonable and objective criteria,39 in pursuit of an aim that is legitimate under the Covenant.40 11.8 The Committee considers that in the particular circumstances of the case where, as alleged by the author, recognized by the domestic courts and not contested by the State party, the exclusion of the author from the care under IFHP could result in the author’s loss of life or irreversible, negative consequences for the author’s health, the distinction drawn by the State party for the purpose of admission to the Programme between those with legal 38 39 40 See also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Juridical conditions and rights of undocumented migrants, advisory opinion AO-18/03 of 17 September 2003. See, e.g., communications No. 172/1984, Broeks v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/29/D/172/1984), para. 13; and No. 182/1984, Zwaan-de Vries v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/29/D/182/1984), para. 13. See, e.g., communication No. 1314/2004, O’Neill and Quinn v. Ireland (CCPR/C/87/D/1314/2004), para. 8.3. 15