CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 2.15 On 30 April 2013, the author became eligible for health-care coverage as a result of her application for permanent residence based on spousal sponsorship and a confirmation by Citizenship and Immigration Canada that she met the criteria for spousal sponsorship. Since then, the author was granted health-care coverage under the provincial Ontario Health Insurance Plan and has been receiving health care. 2.16 The author claims that she has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies and that she has not submitted her communication to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 2.17 The remedy sought by the author is twofold. She requests the State party (a) to ensure that illegal immigrants have access to IFHP coverage for health care necessary for the protection of their rights to life and security of person; and (b) to provide her with compensation for the severe psychological distress, inhuman treatment and exposure to a risk to life and to long-term negative health consequences as a result of the violation of her rights.7 The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party violated its obligations under articles 2 (1) and (3) (a), 6, 7, 9 (1) and 26 of the Covenant by denying her access to health care necessary for the protection of her life and health from 10 July 2009 through 30 April 2013, on the basis of her irregular immigration status. She submits that she lacked the means to pay for the care herself. 3.2 The author submits that the exclusion from health-care coverage on the basis of her particular immigration status constitutes a violation of her rights under articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. The author asserts that the domestic courts’ findings concerning the denial of health care on the basis of her immigration status is not an objective, proportionate or reasonable means of deterring illegal immigration. The author also submits that she did not migrate to Canada to secure health care; she decided to remain in Canada in order to work. She claims that excluding her from IFHP coverage on the basis of her immigration status constituted a discriminatory distinction and that her circumstances, particularly her lifethreatening status, were not taken into consideration. 3.3 The author further claims that the denial of access to health care put her life at risk and constituted cruel and inhuman treatment, in violation of her rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. She underscores that the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the fact that her life and health had been placed at significant risk by the State party’s denial of access to health-care coverage under IFHP and was thus, she claims, a violation of her rights to life and not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under articles 6 and 7, respectively. 3.4 The author also claims that the denial of such access caused her physical and mental suffering that may also constitute a violation of article 9 (1). In this regard, the author requests that the Committee, which has generally restricted the application of article 9 to issues relating to the administration of justice, extend the scope of the right to security of person under this article to also cover access to health care, with reference to the practice of the Canadian courts. 3.5 The author finally claims that the State party has violated article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant by failing to provide effective remedies for the discrimination she experienced on the ground of her immigration status, as well as for the violation of her rights to life and to security of person. The author submits that the domestic courts should have interpreted and applied the relevant domestic law in accordance with the Covenant. She adds that she was denied an effective remedy as the domestic courts had failed to refer to expert evidence attesting to discriminatory stigmatization of undocumented migrants as a result of denying them access to health care. 7 4 According to the affidavit of a doctor of internal medicine who testified in favour of the author before the Federal Court, it appears that she would suffer consequences from the past denial of access to health care.