CERD/C/112/D/74/2021 Centre established that G.I. had had a panic attack and was suffering from schizophrenia. On 9 December 2020, two doctors at the University Hospital for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy in Bern diagnosed her with paranoid schizophrenia and confirmed that she had post-traumatic stress disorder. G.I. reportedly heard voices telling her to commit suicide and not to give information to doctors and experienced problems sleeping and nightmares. She also refused to talk to male doctors because of her fear of men. Complaint 3.1 The petitioners claim that their removal to North Macedonia would constitute a violation of their rights under article 5 (b) and (e) (iv) read in conjunction with article 2 (1) (a) of the Convention. They argue that, although the principle of non-refoulement is not explicitly mentioned in the Convention, the Committee clarified in its general recommendation No. 22 (1996) that States parties were obliged to respect the principle of non-refoulement and non-expulsion of refugees.5 3.2 The petitioners argue that there are substantial grounds to believe that, if they were to be returned to North Macedonia, they would face a real risk that their right to security and physical safety would be seriously violated on account of their Roma ethnicity. By putting them at risk of such treatment, the State party would be in violation of article 5 (b) read in conjunction with article 2 (1) (a) of the Convention. They also claim that the Swiss authorities’ assessment of their asylum application was inadequate, as it failed to take into account their personal circumstances, including their ethnicity. 3.3 G.I. argues that there are substantial grounds to believe that, if she returned to North Macedonia, she would be deprived of access to the medical care she needs because of her Roma ethnicity. Consequently, her expulsion to that country would constitute a violation by the State party of article 5 (e) (iv) read in conjunction with article 2 (1) (a) of the Convention. 3.4 The petitioners recall the Committee’s position that article 5 of the Convention does not of itself create human right but assumes the existence and recognition of such rights. 6 In this respect, the right not to be subjected to torture and other ill-treatment – enshrined in article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, articles 2 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and provisions of other human rights treaties – is relevant to the present case. Article 5 of the Convention indicates that the rights guaranteed, inter alia, by the above-mentioned treaties must be protected without discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic or national origin. 3.5 The petitioners further argue that, as the Committee has not yet defined a position on the assessment of non-refoulement complaints lodged under article 14 of the Convention, it will have to rely on the jurisprudence of other treaty bodies. The petitioners point out that the Committee against Torture has reiterated that although it is for the complainant to establish a prima facie case for an asylum request, this does not exempt the State party from making substantial efforts to determine whether there are grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned.7 3.6 The petitioners also argue that, in relation to the asylum process, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has interpreted article 2 (c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as requiring States to apply a gender-sensitive approach at every stage of the asylum process. 8 The petitioners argue that the Committee should take the same approach when interpreting the Convention. They also point out that the recent jurisprudence of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has recognized that Roma women in North Macedonia are marginalized and face problems gaining access to gynaecological care and 5 6 7 8 4 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 22 (1996), para. 2 (b). See Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 20 (1996). F.K. v. Denmark (CAT/C/56/D/580/2014), para. 7.6. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 32 (2014), para. 25. GE.24-07887