CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 thoroughly reviewed the evidence with respect to access to emergency care and found that the author’s life and long-term health had been placed at risk. Moreover, the State party’s statement that irregular migrants are entitled to emergency care under provincial legislation is not true in all provinces and territories. 7.3 Regarding the State party’s argument that immigration status is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under article 26, the author submits that irregular migrants face widespread discrimination, exclusion, exploitation and various abuses, and that depriving them of health care cannot be justified as a mean of encouraging compliance with immigration laws. 7.4 On 22 August 2015, the author submitted the legal opinions of International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) and Amnesty International Canada. 7.5 ESCR-Net submits that the narrow characterization by the State party of articles 6, 7 and 9 (1) is incorrect. The consideration of cases that involve situations of access to health care is not dependant on an explicit right to health, but should be undertaken with reference to all relevant human rights engaged. The right to life, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the right to security of person and the right to nondiscrimination must be fully protected with respect to situations involving access to necessary health care, especially in regard to the most vulnerable groups in society, including undocumented migrants. The Committee has affirmed on multiple occasions that access to health care falls under several rights of the Covenant and that such access must be respected and ensured without discrimination, including on the ground of immigration status. 11 ESCR-Net submits that in its 2015 concluding observations on Canada, the Committee called on Canada to “ensure that all refugee claimants and irregular migrants have access to essential health-care services irrespective of their status”.12 Similarly, in its 2014 concluding observations on the United States of America, the Committee called on the United States to “identify ways to facilitate access to adequate health care, including reproductive health care services, by undocumented immigrants ….” 13 ESCR-Net underscores that the European Court of Human Rights regularly considers health-related situations by reference to articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (rights to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), underscoring positive obligations to ensure access to health care in order to protect various human rights, and the right to life in particular. 14 7.6 ESCR-Net also submits that the obligations contained in the Covenant extend to all levels of government and that the State party must ensure that, where the Federal Government has assumed responsibility for providing necessary health care to migrants who are ineligible for provincial health care, the federal programme complies with the Covenant. 7.7 ESCR-Net further submits that immigration should be clearly recognized as a prohibited ground of discrimination, following the interpretation of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 15 Therefore, ESCR-Net considers that State policy or practice that imposes regularization of immigration status as a requirement for the protection of the right to life does not meet any standard of reasonableness under 11 12 13 14 15 See, e.g., communication No. 1020/2001, Cabal and Pasini Bertran v. Australia (CCPR/C/78/D/1020/2002), para. 7.7. See also Human Rights Committee, concluding observations on the initial report of Zimbabwe (CCPR/C/79/Add.89), para. 7; and ibid., comments on the initial report of Nepal (CCPR/C/79/Add.42), para. 8. See Human Rights Committee, concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada (CCPR/C/CAN/CO/6), para. 12. Ibid., concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the United States of America (CCPR/C/USA/CO/4), para. 15. See European Court of Human Rights, Vo v. France (application No. 53924/00), judgment of 8 July 2004, paras. 88 and 89. See also European Court of Human Rights, Gorgiev v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (application No. 49382/06), judgment of 19 April 2012, para. 43. See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “An evaluation of the obligation to take steps to ‘maximum of available resources’ under an optional protocol to the Covenant” (E/C.12/2007/1), paras. 7–8. 7