CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that deporting them and their two minor children to Italy, based on the Dublin II Regulation principle of first country of asylum, would expose them to the risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The authors base their arguments on, inter alia, the economic situation they faced after they were granted residence permits in Italy, and on the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees entering Italy. They claim that, after they had to leave the reception centre in March 2012, they lived on the streets and occasionally in homeless shelters, which were overcrowded and not safe, and in churches. They assert that they might face harsh living conditions, homelessness and destitution upon returning to Italy. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the authors failed to establish a prima facie case for the admissibility of their communication under article 7 of the Covenant, and that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the authors risk being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Italy, and therefore the communication is manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment cannot be interpreted as obliging States parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home nor as entailing any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living. 17 6.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by 7 of the Covenant, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (para. 12). The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high. 18 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence indicating that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such 17 18 GE.16-10167 Ibid., para. 95. See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. 9