CRC/C/85/D/56/2018 3.3 The author claims a violation of article 6 (2) of the Convention. According to her, the right of E.A. and U.A. to healthy development in healthy conditions has been disregarded as a result of the trauma experienced during the attempted removal. 3.4 The author claims that the State party violated E.A. and U.A.’s right to be heard and to participate in judicial proceedings, as enshrined in article 12 of the Convention. E.A. and U.A. were not involved in the proceedings and the authorities did not take into account the numerous reports and testimonies introduced during the proceedings. 3.5 The author considers that E.A. and U.A. are victims of a violation by the State party of article 22 of the Convention. The authorities did not take into consideration the family’s extreme vulnerability and did not consider the application of the sovereignty clause of the Dublin III Regulation in order to allow the family to remain in Switzerland, the only country in which it had ties and a degree of stability. Article 22 was also violated during the attempted removal, as E.A. and U.A. were provided with no protection or assistance. 3.6 The author argues that the State party violated E.A. and U.A.’s right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health under article 24 of the Convention. This right would be disregarded in the event of their removal to Italy, where adequate psychological care is not available for persons who have suffered ill-treatment. The treatment inflicted on E.A. and U.A. during the attempted removal constitutes degrading treatment. A transfer to Italy would prevent them from receiving adequate psychological care following this treatment. 3.7 The author alleges a violation of the right of E.A. and U.A. to be protected against inhuman and degrading treatment under article 37 of the Convention. The way in which the attempted removal was conducted constitutes degrading treatment, especially the verbal and psychological abuse to which the police officers subjected the children. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations of 19 March 2018, the State party explains that the first asylum procedure, initiated by the author, her husband and their children on 20 March 2017, was closed following their declaration that they wished to leave Switzerland and benefit from assistance to return. The author claimed that they had withdrawn their asylum application because of the lack of interpreters, their transfer from Kreuzlingen to the canton of Ticino and the reception conditions, which they considered precarious and degrading. 4.2 On 23 May 2018, the author and her children arrived in Italy on visas issued by the Italian authorities in Baku, valid from 15 May to 8 June 2018. After filing the new asylum application on 25 May 2018, the author was interviewed summarily about her personal profile on 4 June 2018. She stated that she did not wish to go to Italy, on the grounds that she did not know anyone there, whereas she had a network of contacts in Switzerland who could help her. E.A. and U.A. were not interviewed, as they were under the age of 14. On 13 June 2018, on the basis of article 12 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation, 5 the State Secretariat for Migration sent a request to the Italian authorities to take charge of the author and her children. On 19 July 2018, the Italian authorities agreed to take charge of them, specifying that they were considered a family and would be accommodated in suitable housing. By a decision of 20 July 2018, the State Secretariat for Migration chose not to consider their asylum application and ordered their removal to Italy. On 8 August 2018, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the author’s appeal against this decision. The Court found that Italy was competent to consider the asylum application since the author and her children had obtained visas from the Italian consulate in Baku and Italy had agreed to their transfer. The Court noted that the application of the second subparagraph of article 3 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation was not justified, as Italy did not have any systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for asylum seekers. Furthermore, Italy is a State party to the various international treaties on the protection of human rights. The Court found that the guarantees provided by Italy were sufficiently concrete and individualized to exclude a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Finally, the 5 GE.20-14363 According to this provision, “where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa, the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection”. 5