CEDAW/C/76/D/122/2017 that Italy was governed by the rule of law, had a police force that was willing and able to protect the author, and could offer her the necessary care. 4.4 On 14 March 2016, the author filed an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court and, on 22 March 2016, submitted a medical certificate stating that she was undergoing psychiatric treatment and psychotherapy, that she had symptoms of a severe post-traumatic state and that enforcing the decision to return her to Italy could have serious consequences for her mental health. On 24 March 2016, the Court dismissed her appeal on the following grounds: the violence she had allegedly been subjected to in Italy fell under the jurisdiction of the Italian authorities; the author had tried to mislead the Swiss authorities about her status in Italy, as a result of which her statements about the lack of support from the Italian State were not credible; sending the author back would not breach article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights); the author could apply for family reunification from Italy; the judicial system and the police in Italy were functioning, and there were no specific indications that the author had not been afforded protection in the past; the author had access to the medical care she needed in Italy and did not appear, on the basis of her state of health, to be a vulnerable person whose health or life might be in danger if she were sent back. 4.5 On 14 July 2016, the author was transferred to Italy at the Ponte Chiasso border crossing and handed over to the Italian police. The State Secretariat for Migration had informed the Italian authorities by fax of 6 July 2016 that the author suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and had sent them her medical certificate with a translation into Italian. 4.6 On 12 August 2016, the author came back to Switzerland clandestinely. She applied for asylum and, at the same time, requested a change of canton so that she could live with her husband. In particular, she claimed that, after her removal to Italy, she had been left at the border to fend for herself. She had spent 12 days in Como, sleeping in public parks in the company of other migrants. Her medical file had not been transmitted to the Italian authorities. She held that, given her state of health and the reception conditions in Italy, it was not reasonable to send her back to that country. She submitted a medical report dated 13 July 2016 and indicated that, on 7 July 2016, she had given notice to the authorities of her intent to get married. On 25 August 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration granted the author a hearing. By letter dated 5 September 2016, the author made additional comments, stating that, in Italy, she would not have access to the medical care she needed. She submitted a medical certificate dated 31 August 2016 in which a sudden worsening of her symptoms was noted, her removal to Italy having caused new trauma. 4.7 On 10 October 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration decided not to consider the author’s asylum application, noting that her medical certificate did not show that she needed specialized treatment and care unavailable in Italy. Medical services in that country were fit for the treatment of any type of illness. Regarding the risk of suicide, the State Secretariat pointed out that the manifes tation of a tendency towards autoaggressive acts following an order to leave Switzerland was not a sufficient ground to argue that removal would be unreasonable. 4.8 On 20 October 2016, the author filed an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court. On 5 December 2016, the Court referred the case back to the State Secretariat for Migration because it had failed to request the agreement of Italy. On 12 January 2017, the Ministry of the Interior of Italy agreed to readmit the author. On 25 January 2017, the State Secretariat decided not to consider the application and confirmed the decision to send the author back to Italy. In doing so, it noted that the author had not substantiated her claim that she had received no support when she was transferred to 20-11108 7/16