CERD/C/84/D/50/2012 Registration Office informed him that he could register for an entrance examination and advised him to find out about the requirements for taking the examination. The petitioner did not heed this advice and simply turned up at the University thinking that he could take the examination without going through the formalities established in the Regulations. Even though his situation had not changed, he submitted another application in 2009 and was therefore rejected again under article 85 of the Regulations. According to the university files, no application was submitted in 2010. His application in 2011 was turned down for the same reasons as before. On 3 March 2011, he asked the University of Lausanne to inform him of the remedies available and the University did so in a letter of 8 March 2011. The petitioner did not make use of those remedies. The State party points out that, while the Regulations preclude the matriculation of persons admitted to Switzerland temporarily, it is not for reasons of race but because their status in Switzerland is uncertain as their asylum application has been turned down and they are only in the country because return is not yet possible. The State party points out that the Committee’s case law holds that restricted access to universities (by persons who do not have a permanent residence permit, for example) is compatible with the Convention.10 4.14 With regard to access to treatment and health insurance, the State party notes that the right to obtain assistance in emergencies under article 12 of the Constitution entails, among other things, a right of access to basic medical care that must be the same for all, without discrimination of any kind. This is a social right that is directly justiciable in the courts. Compulsory health insurance for persons admitted on a temporary basis is governed by the Federal Asylum Act and the Federal Act of 18 March 1994 on Health Insurance. In this case, the petitioner had to go urgently to the Stomatology and Dental Care Service on 14 January 2008 to have a tooth treated. The invoices for treatment were sent to the Migrant Reception Office of the Canton of Vaud, which settled them. As to the estimate for dental treatment prepared for the petitioner by a dentist, the Migrant Reception Office requested a breakdown of the estimate and, after verification, provided a payment guarantee. The authorities of the State party can thus not be accused of failing to guarantee the petitioner’s access to health. 4.15 The State party notes that, according to the petitioner, the housing inspections under article 32 of the Cantonal Act on Assistance to Asylum Seekers and Other Categories of Foreign Nationals are a violation of his right to respect for the home, and discriminatory. The petitioner occupies accommodation provided by the Migrant Reception Office and, under article 81 of the Federal Asylum Act and articles 28 ff. of the Cantonal Act on Assistance to Asylum Seekers, that Office may obtain entry to a dwelling under certain conditions relating to the general interest and maintaining a due sense of proportion. As it happens, between 2009 and the time of writing of the State party’s observations, the Office has had to enter the petitioner’s dwelling on only two occasions, which cannot be considered disproportionate. The Office’s maintenance service needed to go in first in order to carry out a health check of the premises and on the second occasion, in January 2011, in order to take some measurements. Prior written notification was given of both of the inspections, and no objection was made to the decisions. The State party has no knowledge of any incident regarding the petitioner’s letterbox. In any event, the checks carried out in this instance are not indicative of any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. 4.16 With regard to social assistance, the author is completely supported by the Migrant Reception Office. In accordance with the relevant legal provisions, he is granted the sum of 10 10 Applications from candidates meeting these administrative requirements shall be forwarded to the relevant faculty by the Board of the University. See communication No. 42/2008, D.R. v. Australia, opinion adopted on 14 August 2009, para. 7.2. GE.14-41526