CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 Canadian Charter. The author admits that she did not initiate separate litigation under domestic law to seek only the monetary compensation. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 2 April 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. 6.2 Regarding admissibility, the State party reiterates its observations of 14 August 2014 that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Canada implemented a new policy (“2014 Policy”) on 5 November 2014 to temporarily provide funded medical care to certain categories of foreign nationals with no legal status. The State party claims that the 2014 Policy allows the Minister of Health to grant a more comprehensive range of medical coverage “because of exceptional and compelling circumstances”. As of the date of the submission, discretionary medical coverage had been applied to the situation of migrants with no legal status in Canada and granted in two such cases. 6.3 Regarding the merits, the State party considers the author’s allegations with respect to articles 2, 6, 7 and 9 (1) as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (d) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 6.4 Regarding article 2, the State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that the provisions of article 2 lay down general obligations for States parties and cannot, by themselves, give rise to a claim under the Optional Protocol. 10 6.5 The State party recalls that article 6 provides a negative right, prohibiting laws or actions that cause arbitrary deprivations of life. The scope of the right to life cannot extend so far as to impose a positive obligation on States to provide an optimal level of Statefunded medical insurance to undocumented migrants (inadmissibility ratione materiae). 6.6 The State party similarly argues that article 7 cannot be interpreted to impose a positive obligation to provide State funding for an optimal level of medical insurance. 6.7 The State party claims that the scope of article 9 (1) is generally limited to situations involving detention or other deprivations of liberty, although the Committee, in its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, sought to expand its interpretation of the scope of the right to protection from “intentional infliction of bodily or mental injury, regardless of whether the victim is detained or non-detained”. 6.8 Concerning the alleged violation of article 26 of the Covenant, the State party argues that health insurance coverage is provided to citizens and non-citizens, and to foreign nationals with a wide variety of immigration statuses. It also submits that the denial of health care was justified, as the author did not have legal residence. The State party further submits that legal residence is a neutral, objective requirement that cannot be considered as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 7.1 On 22 August 2015, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. She rejected the State party’s argument that the Covenant does not impose positive obligations on States under articles 6, 7 and 9 (1) and that her claims are inadmissible ratione materiae. This argument is inconsistent with the Committee’s general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life and its jurisprudence. She does not claim a right to health, but that specific rights under the Covenant have been violated in the context of access to health care through IFHP. The author also submits that the right to life, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the right to security of person and the right to non-discrimination must be fully protected with respect to situations involving access to health care, including for irregular migrants. 7.2 The author also rejects the State party’s argument that emergency and pro bono medical care were sufficient to protect her Covenant rights, recalling that the Federal Court 10 6 See communications No. 1234/2003, P.K. v. Canada (CCPR/C/89/D/1234/2003), para. 7.6; and No. 1544/2007, Hamida v. Canada (CCPR/C/98/D/1544/2007), para. 7.3.