CRC/C/85/D/56/2018 Migration, but also the fact that the State Secretariat did not take into account their wishes, as reported by their lawyer and their mother, to stay in Switzerland because they felt safe there in view of the support network of people they knew. The State Secretariat does not specify how the interests of E.A. and U.A. were assessed and weighed. 5.13 With regard to article 22 of the Convention, the author considers that the State party did not do everything in its power to protect E.A. and U.A. It did not take into account their state of mind, their fears, their anxieties and their hopes when it coldly decided to send them back to Italy. 5.14 The author claims that the authorities of the State Secretariat, the police and the judiciary failed to interpret and apply domestic norms in order to effectively guarantee the right to health and the physical and mental well-being of E.A. and U.A. within the meaning of article 24 of the Convention. 5.15 With regard to the alleged violation of article 37 of the Convention, the author reiterates that the State party subjected E.A. and U.A. to inhuman and degrading treatment. She points out that at the time of their first entry into Switzerland, E.A. and U.A. had fled their country because of the persecution suffered by their parents. On arrival in Switzerland, the children experienced psychological stress due to the way their parents were treated. They returned to their country, where they experienced the disappearance of their father and a second escape with the hope of finding in Switzerland a few people who could provide them with a degree of stability. However, they were subjected to a “transfer” to Zurich airport to be sent back to Italy. 5.16 The author informed the Committee that E.A. is attending school, while U.A. is enrolled in kindergarten. Their father has arrived in Switzerland and lives with the family in a centre for asylum seekers. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies with respect to her claims in relation to the attempted removal of 12 September 2018. It notes that the author complained to the cantonal authorities – the government and parliament of the canton of Ticino – about the actions of the police during the attempted removal, but she did not institute legal proceedings. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the claims related to articles 2, 3, 6 (2), 24 and 37 of the Convention concerning the attempted removal on 12 September 2018 and its consequences on the health of E.A. and U.A. are inadmissible under article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation of a violation of article 37 of the Convention in relation to the reception conditions of her family during her first stay in Switzerland. It notes, however, that it does not appear from the communication that these conditions have been challenged before the Swiss authorities. It therefore finds that this allegation is also inadmissible under article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that the State party has violated its obligation to respect the rights set forth in article 2 of the Convention, as the State Secretariat for Migration failed to take into consideration the vulnerability of E.A. and U.A. It also takes note of the author’s allegation that the State Secretariat discriminated against E.A. and U.A., as prohibited by article 2 (2) of the Convention. The Committee notes, however, that the author sets out these grievances in a very general manner, without explaining the basis of the alleged discrimination. Therefore, the Committee declares these claims manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under article 7 (f) of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s arguments that the provisions of articles 2 (2), 3, 6 (2), 22 and 24 of the Convention do not provide a basis for subjective 12 GE.20-14363