CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014 3.5 The second author states that her circumstances differ from those of the authors in the case of Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy,5 as she has already been transferred from Norway to Italy. After being housed for a few months in a reception centre in Turin, she did not receive any assistance from the Italian authorities to secure her basic needs, namely, shelter and food, nor was she provided with any assistance to find work, more permanent housing or to integrate into Italian society. 3.6 The authors maintain that the background information presented above concerning the situation of asylum seekers and refugees with temporary residence permits in Italy, together with their previous experiences, indicate systemic failures regarding basic support for asylum seekers and refugees in Italy, especially members of vulnerable groups. It thus seems that there is a serious and real risk that, if deported, the authors and their children will face homelessness, destitution with no prospects of finding a durable humanitarian solution. 3.7 The authors assert that, in view of that situation, including the fact that they have two infant children, their deportation to Italy constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant as Italy does not currently meet the necessary humanitarian standards for the principle of first country of asylum to be applied. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 27 November 2014, the State party informed the Committee that in a decision dated 24 January 2014, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board upheld the refusal by the Danish Immigration Service of the authors’ asylum application. In its evaluation of whether Italy could serve as the applicants’ first country of asylum, the Board took note of the authors’ account, but found that their integrity and safety were sufficiently protected. The State party considers that the authors failed to establish a prima facie case for the admissibility of their communication under article 7 of the Covenant. Thus 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. For the same reasons, the State party considers that the communication is wholly without merit. 4.2 In more specific terms, the State party considers that the authors did not produce any essential new information or views on their circumstances, beyond the information already relied upon during the asylum proceedings, which the Refugee Appeals Board had already considered in its decision of 24 January 2014. The Board found that the authors had previously been granted subsidiary protection in Italy and that they may enter Italy legally and stay there while applying for renewal of their residence permits. Therefore, Italy is considered the country of first asylum, which justifies the refusal of the Danish authorities to grant them asylum, in accordance with section 7 (3) of the Aliens Act. When applying the principle of country of first asylum, the Board requires, at a minimum, that the asylum seeker is protected against refoulement and that he or she be able to enter legally and take up lawful residence in the country of first asylum, and that the asylum seeker’s personal integrity and safety must be protected in that country. 4.3 According to the State party, such protection includes certain social and economic elements, as asylum seekers must be treated in accordance with basic human standards and their personal integrity must be protected. The core element of such protection is that the persons concerned must enjoy personal safety, both upon entering and while staying in the 5 GE.16-10167 See Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy. 5