CERD/C/112/D/74/2021 Committee further notes that the petitioners request the Committee to declare their communication admissible under article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention and to take due account of the medical reports of 6 November and 9 December 2020. 6.5 The Committee notes the petitioners’ argument that the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture have established that, in relation to non-refoulement, a domestic remedy is effective if it has automatic suspensive effect. It also notes that, according to the petitioners, article 111b (3) of the Asylum Act provides that an application for re-examination does not automatically suspend a removal decision and that this fact was reaffirmed by the State Secretariat for Migration in its manual on asylum and return. The Committee observes that the petitioners did not attempt to use the re-examination procedure available to them in view of the new circumstances relating to G.I.’s health. It also observes that article 111b of the Asylum Act provides that the time limit for submitting an application for re-examination to the Secretariat of State is 30 days after the discovery of the ground for re-examination, notwithstanding the State party’s argument that, according to long-standing jurisprudence, this time limit does not constitute an obstacle to the re-examination of the removal on the basis of new elements submitted by the petitioners. The Committee notes that the submission of an application for re-examination under article 111b of the Asylum Act does not suspend the enforcement of removal, since the competent authority has discretion to grant suspensive effect. In the present case, it considers that this appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect and does not constitute a remedy to be exhausted. 35 In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the fact that the petitioners did not file an application for re-examination under section 111b of the Asylum Act does not constitute grounds for inadmissibility of the communication. 6.6 As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the present communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee observes, at the outset, that it must determine whether an act of racial discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention has occurred before it can decide whether the State party has failed to fulfil one of the substantive obligations of prevention, protection and redress set out in the Convention.36 7.3 The Committee observes that the present communication constitutes a new case in that the petitioners are asking it to rule on an obligation of non-refoulement under article 14 of the Convention. It must determine in the present case whether the return of the petitioners to North Macedonia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 5 (b) and (e) (iv) read in conjunction with article 2 (1) (a) of the Convention. 7.4 The Committee notes the petitioners’ claim that their return to North Macedonia would expose them to a real risk that their right to security and physical safety would be seriously violated on account of their Roma ethnicity, in violation of article 5 (b) read in conjunction with article 2 (1) (a) of the Convention. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the return of the petitioners would be contrary to the Convention only in the event of a real, personal and foreseeable risk of violence or particularly serious treatment related to discrimination. The State party, basing its analysis of the risk of torture on the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture in relation to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, reiterates that, in determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account a series of considerations, including, where applicable: the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights; allegations of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past; the petitioner’s 35 36 GE.24-07887 See, among others, Al-Gertani v. Bosnia-Herzegovina, para. 9.3. See also S.A.C. v. Monaco, para. 7.2, and A.P. v. Finland, para. 8.3. L.R. et al. v. Slovak Republic (CERD/C/66/D/31/2003), para. 10.2. 11