CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014 5.3 The authors dispute the State party’s interpretation of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The authors argue that the entitlements of beneficiaries of international protection enumerated in the Mohammed Hussein decision reflect relevant Italian domestic law, and that this information is partly challenged in reports from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and from non-governmental organizations.12 In reality, the actual living conditions of returnees in Italy under the Dublin II Regulation are disputed. The authors contend that the Mohammed Hussein decision was based on the assumption that upon notification, the Italian authorities would prepare a suitable solution for the arrival of the applicant’s family in Italy. 13 The second author submits that she was also transferred from Norway to Italy and was not provided with any assistance by the Italian authorities to find temporary or permanent shelter apart from a brief stay in a reception centre upon her return from Norway. Thus, based on the second author’s experience, there is no basis for assuming that the Italian authorities will prepare for the authors’ return in accordance with basic human rights standards until a durable solution is found for them. 5.4 Furthermore, the authors argue that the more recent European Court decision in Tarakhel v. Switzerland, which involved similar facts, supports their claim that they should not be sent back to Italy. The authors note that, in the Tarakhel v. Switzerland case, the Court stated that the presumption that a State participating in the Dublin system will respect the fundamental rights in the European Convention on Human Rights is not irrebuttable. 14 The Court found that, in the current situation in Italy, “the possibility that a significant number of asylum seekers may be left without accommodation or accommodated in overcrowded facilities without any privacy, or even in insalubrious or violent conditions, cannot be dismissed as unfounded”. 15 It emphasized children’s “specific needs” and “extreme vulnerability” and stated that “reception conditions for children seeking asylum must be adapted to their age, to ensure that those conditions do not ‘create … for them a situation of stress and anxiety, with particular traumatic consequences’”. 16 The Court required Switzerland to obtain assurances from its Italian counterparts that the applicants, a family, would be received in facilities and conditions adapted to the age of the children. If such assurances were not made, Switzerland would be violating article 3 of the European Convention by transferring them to Italy. 5.5 The authors submit that the decision in the Tarakhel v. Switzerland case seems to indicate that the fact that a person does not risk refoulement to Italy does not mean that being returned there does not constitute a violation of article 3 of the European Convention, given the harsh living conditions in the overcrowded reception facilities for asylum seekers, especially for families with children. Accordingly, the authors claim that the fact that they may face harsh living conditions, homelessness and destitution upon returning to Italy would fall within the scope of article 7 of the Covenant, even if their residence permits in Italy are to be renewed. The authors conclude by stating that the current living conditions in Italy for returnees under the Dublin II Regulation who are beneficiaries of international protection do not meet basic humanitarian standards, as required by the Executive Committee of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in its conclusion No. 58, and thus returning them to Italy would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 12 13 14 15 16 8 See Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy, paras. 43-44 and 46-50. Ibid., para. 77. See Tarakhel v. Switzerland, para. 103. Ibid., para. 115. Ibid., para. 119. GE.16-10167