CERD/C/112/D/74/2021 4.15 In the light of the foregoing, the State party considers that the present communication contains no evidence of the existence of a serious and specific risk for the petitioners of being subjected, in the event of their return to North Macedonia, to violence or treatment of such gravity that their removal would contravene the principle of non-refoulement. The State party also points out that, should the petitioners encounter discriminatory practices in North Macedonia, or should they consider that this State is in breach of its obligations to assist them or is in any other way infringing their fundamental rights, it would be up to them to assert their rights directly before the North Macedonian authorities, using the appropriate legal channels. Petitioners’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 11 November 2021, the petitioners submitted their comments on the State party’s observations.27 They rejected the State party’s claim that their communication is inadmissible. 5.2 First, the petitioners do not dispute that the medical reports concerning G.I. of 6 November and 9 December 2020 were not submitted to the national authorities and were drawn up after the Federal Administrative Court’s decision of 30 July 2020. They are of the view, however, that this does not prevent the Committee from declaring the present communication admissible and from examining the documents in question. They dispute the State party’s argument that G.I. based her claim about inadequate access to medical care owing to her membership of the Roma community on these medical reports. On the contrary, they maintain that G.I. based her claim regarding her state of mental health on three medical documents that had been submitted to the national authorities. They consider that the medical reports of 6 November and 9 December 2020 contain only additional information that underlines the content of their previous submissions. 5.3 Second, the petitioners challenge the State party’s argument of inadmissibility on the ground that the medical reports of 6 November and 9 December 2020 post-date the Federal Administrative Court’s decision of 30 July 2020. They recall that the Committee against Torture considered a similar issue in the case of A.M. v. France, concerning the admissibility of information that had not been communicated to the authorities prior to the submission of the individual communication. 28 The Committee against Torture observed that the information in question had been received by the complainant, through no fault of his own, after the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the State party and decided that the new information, which had not been submitted to the national authorities, could be taken into account and that the communication was admissible. 29 The petitioners further state that the medical reports of 6 November and 9 December 2020 were not produced for the purposes of the present communication, but rather were an objective medical necessity for G.I. because of the drastic deterioration of her mental health. 5.4 Third, the petitioners reject the State party’s argument that they must initiate a domestic review in order to submit the medical reports of 6 November and 9 December 2020 concerning G.I. They recall that the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee have repeatedly stressed that, in the context of non-refoulement, a domestic remedy is effective if it has automatic suspensive effect. 30 The petitioners recall that, in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement, which is recognized in relation to racial discrimination, domestic remedies are effective within the meaning of article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention if they have automatic suspensive effect. They argue that the submission of an application for re-examination under article 111b (3) of the Asylum Act does not automatically suspend a removal decision. They also point out that the State Secretariat for Migration has confirmed in its manual on asylum and return that the application for 27 28 29 30 8 Petitioners’ comments were submitted in Russian on 11 November 2021. They were submitted in English on 3 January 2023. A.M. v. France (CAT/C/44/D/302/2006), para. 9. Ibid., para. 12.3. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), paras. 13, 18 (e) and 41; S.A.C. v. Monaco (CAT/C/49/D/346/2008), para. 7.2; and A.P. v. Finland (CAT/C/60/D/465/2011), para. 8.3. See also Al-Gertani v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/109/D/1955/2010), para. 9.3, and CCPR/C/FRA/CO/5, para. 18. GE.24-07887