CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 between foster children and biological children, was entirely different from the nature of the distinction drawn in the present case. 30 9.8 Finally, the author rejects the State party’s observations on the merits. With respect to the comments made by the State party on the publicly funded emergency health-care services, the author notes that she was living in destitution at the time she applied for coverage under IFHP and had no possibility of paying for health care. In response to the State party’s observation that she received publicly funded emergency health services, the author argues that the Federal Court found that she had been denied health care necessary for the protection of her life and long-term health, and that she was also billed for health care she had received from emergency departments because she did not have IFHP coverage. The author also refers to her attempt to have her application for permanent residency reviewed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, a review that was prolonged by the refusal of the Minister of Health to consider the author’s request that fees which she could not afford to pay be waived.31 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.3 The Committee notes the State party’s objection to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the author sought, by way of an actio popularis, to challenge the law in order to ensure that individuals residing in Canada with irregular immigration or citizenship status have access to IFHP health-care coverage and that the author is not a victim of a violation of articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol, as she has been a beneficiary of provincial health-care coverage since April 2013. In this regard, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which “a person may claim to be a victim under article 1 of the Optional Protocol only if his or her rights are effectively violated. The concrete application of this condition is a question of degree. However, no person can in the abstract, by way of actio popularis, challenge a law or practice claimed to be contrary to the Covenant.”32 10.4 The Committee notes, however, the author’s submission that her communication indicates how the policy was applied to her as an individual and how it personally and directly affected her from 2006 to 2013, as demonstrated by the findings of the domestic courts, including in regard to the admitted consequences that were harmful for her health (see para. 2.9). In the light of its jurisprudence, the Committee considers that, due to her exclusion from IFHP between 2006 and 2013 and the consequences thereof, the author may claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of her rights under the Covenant within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol.33 10.5 The Committee also notes the State party’s objections to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the author’s communication is moot since the health scheme challenged by the author no longer exists, having been modified in 2012 and in 2014, and that the regularization of the author’s status in Canada allowed her to benefit 30 31 32 33 12 In that case, the Committee found no violation of article 26 and noted that “the Child Benefit Act makes no distinction between Dutch nationals and non-nationals, such as migrant workers” (para. 7.5). The Minister agreed to consider her request only when ordered to do so by the Federal Court of Appeal. See communication No. 35/1978, Aumeeruddy-Cziffra et al. v. Mauritius (CCPR/C/12/D/35/1978), para. 9.2. See, e.g., communications No. 1024/2001, Sanlés v. Spain (CCPR/C/80/D/1024/2001), para. 6.2; 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. See also Jazairi v. Canada, para. 7.6.