CCPR/C/123/D/2348/2014 8.4 The State party also claims that the author did not seek a formal decision regarding her eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Program nor seek judicial review of the Province’s response. The State party also considers that she has failed to challenge the constitutionality of the Ontario Health Insurance Program regime in Canadian courts. It notes that in Canada’s federal system, the province has the responsibility to determine eligibility for publicly funded health care and it is thus against this level of government that the author should have sought a domestic remedy. 8.5 The State party recalls that the author has been a permanent resident of Canada since 2013 and has received comprehensive public health insurance sufficient to meet all her medical needs. The State party notes that the regularization of her status in Canada has provided her with comprehensive and publicly funded health care. It recalls that the Committee recognized in Dranichnikov v. Australia 19 that the granting of a civil status sufficient to provide the author with protection (such as a protection visa) rendered the claim moot and inadmissible on that basis. 8.6 The State party, recalling the Committee’s decision in A.P.L.-v.d.M. v. Netherlands,20 that the author “cannot, at the time of submitting the complaint, claim to be a victim of a violation of the Covenant”, notes that the author began to receive publicly funded health care on 30 April 2013, eight months before she filed her communication with the Committee on 24 December 2013. The State party therefore states that the communication is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The State party maintains that the communication is an actio popularis and is therefore inadmissible. The State party recalls that the author, in addition to her individual claim, sought to “ensure that individuals residing in Canada with irregular immigration or citizenship status have access to IFHP coverage for health care”. The State party notes that this part of the claim thus relates not to the author but to other undocumented migrants who may seek access to IFHP to fund their health-care needs. The State party therefore underscores that such an allegation lies outside the scope of the Optional Protocol and that the Committee has consistently recognized that “to the extent an author argues that a scheme as a whole is in breach of the Covenant, the claim amounts to an actio popularis reaching beyond the circumstances of the author’s own case”.21 8.8 The State party states that the alleged violations under articles 6, 7 and 9 (1) of the Covenant, including the denial of publicly funded primary health care, failed to fall within the scope of the Covenant. The State party, noting the Committee’s views on the right to publicly funded primary or preventive health care, states that “deprivation of life involves a deliberate or otherwise foreseeable and preventable infliction of life-terminating harm or injury that goes beyond mere damage to health, of which the author would be at risk if she did not receive ‘timely and appropriate health care and medication’”. The State party submits that the author was provided with sufficient publicly funded emergency and essential health care available to everyone, regardless of civil status or residency. The State party also submits that the availability of emergency and essential health care fulfils its obligations related to the protection of life under article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 8.9 The State party also states that it has not sought to prevent the author from obtaining health-care services at community health centres 22 or elsewhere on a pro bono basis. It recalls that the Federal Court of Appeal noted that the author had access to medical assistance at these centres after her medical needs surpassed her ability to pay. 8.10 The State party maintains that the interpretation of the right to life cannot extend so far as to impose a positive obligation on States to provide an optimal level of State-funded medical insurance to undocumented migrants. In this regard, the State party relies on the Committee’s decision in Linder v. Finland that the “right to health, as such, is not protected 19 20 21 22 See communication No. 1291/2004, Dranichnikov v. Australia (CCPR/C/88/D/1291/2004), para. 6.3. See communication No. 478/1991, A.P.L.-v.d.M. v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/48/D/478/1991), para. 6.3. See communication No. 958/2000, Jazairi v. Canada (CCPR/C/82/D/958/2000), para. 7.6; see also communication No. 1114/2002, Kavanagh v. Ireland (CCPR/C/76/D/1114/2002), para. 4.3. The community health centres are non-profit organizations that provide primary health and healthpromotion programmes to individuals in the community. 9