CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 by the provisions of the Covenant”.23 The State party therefore states that the Covenant does not create an obligation to fund primary or preventive health care. 8.11 As regards the alleged violation under article 26, the State party submits that, in allocating public health-care funding, it may reasonably differentiate between those with lawful status in the country (whether citizens, permanent residents, asylum seekers or immigrants, inter alia) and foreign nationals who have not been lawfully admitted to Canada. The State party recalls the Committee’s views that a “differentiation based on reasonable and objective criteria does not amount to prohibited discrimination within the meaning of article 26”.24 Relying on the case Oulajin and Kaiss,25 the State argues that its requirement that foreign nationals be lawfully present in Canada before accessing publicly funded primary health care is both an objective and a reasonable criterion in respect of the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law found in article 26 of the Covenant. 8.12 Regarding the merits, the State party recalls that the author received publicly funded emergency health-care services and was not prevented from obtaining primary health care from various community organizations, on a pro bono basis, or on the basis of private health insurance. 8.13 The State party concludes that there has been no violation of articles 2 (1) and (3) (a), 6, 7, 9 (1) or 26 of the Covenant and requests the Committee to declare the author’s request for financial compensation inadmissible. Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 9.1 On 26 July 2016, the author submitted comments on the State party’s additional observations. She objects to the argument that she should have pursued remedies with provincial governments in Canada for her complaint against the Federal Government to be admissible. She submits that she challenged the Federal Government’s denial of health care under IFHP and that this denial, as found by the Federal Court, violated her right to life by subjecting her to significant threats to her life and negative long-term health consequences. The author further submits that the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement in federal States should be applied in a manner consistent with the Committee’s observation at paragraph 4 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant. 26 9.2 The author submits that she has solicited the opinion of a group of leading experts in the field of constitutional and health law in Canada. 27 These experts are of the opinion that the author reasonably sought a remedy against the Federal Government, rather than a province, for failure to provide her with health-care coverage for emergency and essential health care. 9.3 The author rejects the State party’s observation that her communication is moot, as in the case of Dranichnikov v. Australia. The author recalls that in that case, the author alleged that her rights under article 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant would be violated if she were to be deported to the Russian Federation. The author notes that, having been granted a protection visa, the Committee found the allegations related to the threat of deportation to be moot, such that there were no longer any threats of deportation. In the present case, the 23 24 25 26 27 10 See communication No. 1420/2005, Linder v. Finland (CCPR/C/85/D/1420/2005), para. 4.3. See communication No. 180/1984, Danning v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/29/D/180/1984), para. 13. See communications Nos. 406/1990 and 426/1990, Oulajin and Kaiss v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/46/D/406/1990 and 426/1990), para. 7.3. In general comment No. 31, the Committee reminded States parties with a federal structure of the terms of article 50, according to which the Covenant’s provisions “shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions”. The opinion is attached to the communication. As of 3 June 2016, it had been signed by: Prof. Y.Y. Brandon Chen; Prof. Martha Jackman, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa; Prof. Angela Cameron, PhD, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa; Prof. Jennifer Koshan, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary; Prof. Bruce Ryder, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University; Prof. Margot Young, Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia; Prof. Catherine Dauvergne, Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia; Prof. Sharry Aiken, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University; and Prof. Constance McIntosh, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University.