CEDAW/C/76/D/122/2017 4.13 The State party notes that the author has not demonstrated any gender-based discrimination in respect of access to accommodation and specialized medical care in Italy, and that she has established no link between the failure on the part of the Italian authorities to offer her appropriate reception conditions and the violations of the Convention that she alleges. Nor has the author credibly demonstrated that she applied to the Italian authorities to obtain suitable protection. 4.14 The State party considers that, in substance, the author’s claims are aimed at challenging the manner in which the Swiss authorities assessed the circumstances of her case, applied the provisions of legislation and reached conclusions. The Swiss authorities concluded that the author’s version of events lacked credibility and was not sufficiently substantiated. No other conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the limited information provided by the author in support of her communication. In view of the foregoing, the State party invites the Committee to declare the communication inadmissible for lack of substantiation, under article 4 (2), of the Optional Protocol. 4.15 If, however, the Committee considers the articles invoked by the author to be applicable by Switzerland, the State party is of the view that it has not violated the Convention, for the reasons set out below. 4.16 With regard to article 2 of the Convention, the State party recalls that the Committee has found violations of this article in cases other than those involving non-refoulement. 15 Furthermore, in two recent communications concerning Denmark and involving non-refoulement – specifically, the return of the authors to Somalia – the Committee, while not underestimating the concerns that might legitimately be expressed with regard to the general human rights situation in Somalia, in particular concerning women’s rights, held that the authorities of the State party had given sufficient consideration to the authors’ asylum claims. The Committee therefore found that the authorities of the State party had conducted the examination of those claims in a manner respecting its obligations under the Convention. 16 The State party maintains that, in the present case, the Swiss authorities have examined the author’s asylum application in a manner respecting the State party’s obligations under the Convention. 4.17 The State party emphasizes in respect of the claims relating to the lack of appropriate support for vulnerable asylum seekers in Italy in general and the impact of the Mediterranean crisis in particular, access to treatment in Italy and conditions of accommodation – arguments already adduced by the author before the Federal Administrative Court – that those circumstances affect the entire population and are not within the scope of article 2 of the Convention. Moreover, it is not for the Swiss authorities to ensure that, following a transfer to Italy, persons g ranted international protection have sufficient means of subsistence. Having examined the author’s claims, the competent Swiss authorities concluded that there was no evidence that the author would be at risk of being subjected to serious gender-based violence in Italy or that the Italian authorities would not afford her effective protection against gender based violence. The author has not provided, in her communication, any evidence that would reverse that finding. 4.18 The State party recalls that Italy, as a State party to the Convention and the Optional Protocol, is obliged to apply their provisions. Italy is also bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and various other treaties and __________________ 15 16 20-11108 The State party cites, among others, Vienna Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence and Association for Women’s Access to Justice on behalf of Goekce et al. v. Austria (CEDAW/C/39/D/5/2005), L.R. v. Republic of Moldova (CEDAW/C/66/D/58/2013) and Medvedeva v. Russian Federation (CEDAW/C/63/D/60/2013). F.F.M. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/67/D/70/2014), para. 8.8, and A.M. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/67/D/77/2014), para. 8.6. 9/16