CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014 Annex I Individual opinion of Committee member Yadh Ben Achour (dissenting) [Original: French] 1. I am afraid I cannot endorse the Committee’s decision to find communication No. 2402/2014 inadmissible. From my point of view, the communication is admissible and, on the merits, there is a risk of a violation of article 7 if the authors are deported to Italy. The reasoning behind my opinion is explained below. 2. At the end of paragraph 6.6 of the issues and proceedings before the Committee, the Committee notes a number of facts, some of which argue in favour of the authors’ case, while others argue against it and could justify their deportation. After taking note of all the facts, the Committee concludes that “the authors’ previous experiences in Italy do not substantiate their claim that if returned to Italy they will be at a real risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”. In order to come to this conclusion, the Committee appears to have given disproportionate weight to the factual arguments against the authors. It should, in my opinion, have taken a more balanced view of the facts. Paragraphs 2.5, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 of the factual background contain enough elements to assert that the authors’ deportation to Italy might pose a real risk of them being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7. The fact that the authors enjoyed subsidiary protection in Italy, that they were granted residence permits, that the wife was “hosted in a reception centre in Turin for two months and thereafter her residence permit was renewed for three additional years” and that the author (her husband) “stayed in reception centres since his arrival in Italy in June 2011 until March 2012” in no way alleviates the situation of distress the authors experienced in Italy. On the contrary, the situation was aggravated by the fact that their deportation to Italy would take place subsequently to the birth of two children to the couple, after 2012. This important factor should be taken into consideration to the extent that, objectively speaking, it can only make their situation more unstable and vulnerable if deported to Italy. 3. In this case, the Committee could have relied on precedent from 2015, Jasin et al. v. Denmark,a which is similar in some regards to the present case. In Jasin et al. v. Denmark, the Committee found that the author’s deportation to Italy along with her three minor children would expose them to a risk of irreparable harm. And yet, like in the present case, the author had enjoyed protection and been given housing and a residence permit, which did not prevent the Committee from concluding, based on the circumstances of the case, that she was in a highly vulnerable personal situation, which, coupled with the proven shortcomings of the reception system for asylum seekers and refugees in Italy, gave rise to a real risk of her being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. It is therefore hard to understand why the two cases are being treated differently. The Committee should have come to the same conclusion as in communication No. 2360/2014. 4. The Committee could also have drawn on certain cases considered by the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the judgment in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland,b which dealt with the deportation to Italy of an Afghan couple and their six children. The Court criticized Switzerland for not sufficiently taking into account the complainant’s personal and family circumstances. It ruled that article 3 of the European Convention on a b GE.16-10167 Communication No. 2360/2014, Jasin et al. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015. European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland (application No. 29217/12), decision of 4 November 2014. 11