CERD/C/112/D/74/2021 discrimination based on both gender and ethnic origin.9 In addition, G.I. argues that she is unable to meet the costs of her treatment in North Macedonia, where the necessary infrastructure and personnel do not exist. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 3 June 2021, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. 4.2 Invoking article 14 (2) of the Convention, the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication. It considers the submission of the two medical reports dated 6 November and 9 December 2020 submitted by G.I. attesting to the worsening of her medical situation to have been submitted late. The State party considers that these reports, issued after the last decision of the national authorities and the closure of the ordinary asylum process, may be presented in the context of a re-examination procedure under article 111b of Act No. 142.31 of 26 June 1998 on Asylum. In the context of this procedure, the applicant is free to argue that his or her circumstances have changed significantly since the first-instance decision or, where applicable, the decision on appeal.10 The State party points out that the applicant may present evidence that came to light after the ruling on appeal but that concerns facts predating it.11 The State party also clarifies that new facts and evidence may lead to reconsideration if they are important and decisive, i.e., if they are of such a nature as to influence the outcome of the dispute.12 4.3 In the present case, the State party clarifies that the petitioners may apply for re-examination of the first-instance decision ordering their removal if the enforcement of that decision might breach an international commitment made by Switzerland. 13 Such an application may be made at any time. The State party points out that, although article 111b of the Asylum Act provides that the application for re-examination must be lodged within 30 days of the discovery of the reason for re-examination, long-standing and repeatedly confirmed jurisprudence has held that this procedural time limit cannot stand in the way of the verification of compliance with international conventions binding on Switzerland and, consequently, of the possibly unlawful nature of the enforcement of removal. 14 The State party further maintains that, insofar as this remedy is available to the petitioners, it is incumbent on them to avail themselves of it before bringing their case before the Committee. By failing to do so, they have not exhausted all available domestic remedies. Consequently, the present communication must be declared inadmissible, as it is based on medical documents issued after the Federal Administrative Court’s decision of 30 July 2020. 4.4 On the merits of the communication, the State party indicates that a removal decision can only be considered contrary to the Convention in cases where there are grounds for believing that the person concerned would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of being subjected to particularly serious violence or treatment related to discrimination. In the light of the practice of the Committee against Torture in relation to non-refoulement under article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the State party reiterates that, in determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant 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 existence of and access to evidence from independent sources to support these allegations; the complainant’s engagement in political activities within or outside his 9 10 11 12 13 14 GE.24-07887 S.B. and M.B. v. North Macedonia (CEDAW/C/77/D/143/2019), para. 7.7. Federal Administrative Court, ruling, 30 April 2010, ATAF 2010/22, para. 2.1.1. Federal Administrative Court, ruling, 5 June 2013, ATAF 2013/22, paras. 11.4.3–11.4.7. Federal Supreme Court, ruling, 15 October 2001, ATF 127 V 353, para. 5 (a); Federal Supreme Court, ruling, ATF 118 II 199, para. 5; and Federal Administrative Court, ruling, 16 December 2014, ATAF 2014/39, para. 4.5. Switzerland, Federal Act No. 142.20 of 16 December 2005 on Foreigners and Integration, art. 83 (3). Federal Administrative Court, ATAF 2013/22 (see footnote 11 above), paras. 5.4, 9.3.2 and 11.4.2. 5