CEDAW/C/76/D/122/2017 Author’s comments on the State’s party’s observations 5.1 On 22 October 2018, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 The author observes that the Committee has noted with concern the lack of clarity regarding the direct applicability of the provisions of the Convention in Switzerland and has urged the State party to further clarify the issue of direct applicability within the national legal order. 19 Furthermore, the Committee has expressed concern that, in accordance with the principle of monism, the decision to directly apply provisions of the Convention is at the discretion of the Federal Court and other judicial authorities at the federal and cantonal levels. 20 The Committee recommended that the State party ensure effective enforcement of the rights enshrined in the Convention and provide women with appropriate remedies in the courts for violations of the rights protected by the Convention. 21 5.3 The author rejects the State party’s argument that the communication is not sufficiently substantiated and reiterates her claims under articles 2 (d) and 6 of the Convention. She points out that she is a vulnerable rejected asylum seeker with a baby in her charge, a former victim of sexual abuse, and emphasizes that she would run a real and foreseeable risk of ending up on the street, ho meless and exposed to prostitution, if sent back to Italy. She asserts that the Swiss authorities disregarded these claims because she was a beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Italy. She reaffirms that she was sent back to Italy without the Italian au thorities being informed of her medical situation. It is explicitly stated on the fax of 6 July 2016 submitted by the State party that the document did not reach the Italian authorities; 22 the author adds that, whether or not the Italian authorities receiv ed the document, the State party had an obligation to ensure the proper receipt of this information. 5.4 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, which concluded in 2018 that the current system in Italy does not afford adequ ate access to specialized treatment for asylum seekers suffering from trauma and other mental health conditions. 23 According to the author, living conditions for asylum seekers in Italy, particularly vulnerable persons with mental health problems such as t he author, should be characterized as intolerable. These poor reception conditions are confirmed by numerous sources, cited in the initial communication. On reading these reports, it is clear that the author will not be provided in Italy with effective reh abilitation as a victim of sexual violence and ill-treatment. Failure to provide such rehabilitation would create a situation of anxiety and would have especially traumatic consequences for her mental and physical health. Given her fragility and her curren t state, the living conditions to which she would be exposed in Italy in the event of her removal would evidence a lack of respect for her dignity and would constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 5.5 The author argues that the State party’s observation that she did not seek assistance from the Italian authorities is without foundation. In fact, the author was not taken to the appropriate Italian authority, nor was she informed where she should go. A victim of serious trauma, abandoned at the border in a State in which she was at risk of being subjected to further sexual violence, the author was forced to follow __________________ 19 20 21 22 23 20-11108 CEDAW/C/CHE/CO/4-5, paras. 12 and 13. Ibid., para. 12. See Swiss Confederation, “Guide to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women for the Legal Profession”, part 3. The author notes that it is stated on the fax in German “Ubertragungsfehler, besetzt, keine antwort, kein faxverbidund”, which means “Sending error, busy, no response, no fax connection”. The author refers to A.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/742/2016). 11/16