CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 14 August 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility, requesting separate consideration of admissibility from the merits. 8 4.2 The State party submits that the author is not a victim of a violation according to articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol, as she was ineligible to receive funding through the specialized IFHP and she has been the beneficiary of provincial health-care coverage since April 2013, after receiving a residence permit. The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence on actio popularis, 9 arguing that the author is not a representative of any victim claiming a violation among other potential undocumented migrants. 4.3 It asserts that the 1957 IFHP challenged by the author no longer exists, since it was replaced by the 2012 IFHP. Moreover, the 2012 IFHP was declared invalid on 4 July 2014 by the Federal Court for being inconsistent with sections 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter. The Court held that the Program’s provisions jeopardized the health of vulnerable individuals and failed to show that the denial of health-care coverage to those individuals was necessary to achieve any legitimate aim. The State party also claims that the author no longer has any need to obtain funding for medical care and that her medical needs have been addressed. 4.4 The State party also submits that the author has not exhausted available domestic remedies, as she failed to seek monetary compensation before domestic courts when she challenged the constitutionality of IFHP. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 2 November 2014, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. 5.2 She rejects the arguments that she does not qualify as a victim of the State party’s policy of excluding undocumented migrants from IFHP coverage. She claims that her communication is not an actio popularis, as it does not address the effect of the impugned policy in general but pertains to its application in her case in particular. The author submits that she relies on the findings of the domestic courts and that, as a result of the denial of IFHP coverage, she suffered severe psychological stress and was exposed to a risk to her life, as well as to long-term, and potentially irreversible, negative health consequences. 5.3 The author also rejects the State party’s assertions that her claim that she was excluded from IFHP coverage on the ground that she was an undocumented migrant has become moot because she is now receiving health care as a permanent resident. She argues that the provision of health-care coverage since 2013 has neither removed nor provided compensation for the effects of the psychological stress or long-term health consequences of the denial of health care she suffered as an undocumented migrant. 5.4 She also rejects the State party’s assertions that her communication should be found moot because the 1957 IFHP was replaced by an amended system in 2012. The changes to IFHP modified some aspects of the eligibility of certain groups while continuing to deny coverage to undocumented migrants. The changes made by the State party have not remedied or mitigated in any way the exclusion of undocumented migrants from accessing the Program. 5.5 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author submits that there were no other effective domestic remedies available which would allow for seeking monetary compensation for the violation of her rights under the Covenant. She claims to have exhausted available remedies that would have resulted in monetary compensation for violations of the rights to life, security of the person and non-discrimination under the 8 9 The State party’s request was denied on 1 December 2014, as its inadmissibility arguments were not elaborate, compared to the author’s detailed comments, and disregarded the author’s health status. See, e.g., communications No. 318/1988, E.P. et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/39/D/318/1988), para. 8.2; and No. 1632/2007, Picq v. France (CCPR/C/94/D/1632/2007), para. 6.2. 5