CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014 country of first asylum. However, requiring that asylum seekers have exactly the same social and living standards as nationals of the country is not possible. 4.4 In response to the authors’ allegations that they will not have access to accommodation and are most likely to live on the streets if returned to Italy, the State party refers to the decision of inadmissibility handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy in 2013. In that case, the Court observed that a person granted subsidiary protection will be provided with a residence permit valid for three years, renewable by the Territorial Commission that granted it. Such a permit entitles the person concerned to a travel document for aliens, to work, to family reunion and to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education under Italian domestic law.6 The Court also ruled that in the absence of exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds against removal, the fact that the applicant’s material and social living conditions would be significantly reduced if he or she were to be removed from the contracting State is not sufficient in itself to give rise to a breach of article 3. It then considered, while taking into account the reports drawn up by both governmental and non-governmental organizations, that “while the general situation and living conditions in Italy of asylum seekers, accepted refugees and aliens who have been granted a residence permit for international protection or humanitarian purposes may disclose some shortcomings …, it has not been shown to disclose a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group of people, as was the case in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece”.7 The Court found the applicant’s allegations manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible and that the applicant could be returned to Italy. 4.5 With regard to the present case, the State party considers that, although the authors have relied on the European Court’s finding in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, the Court’s decision in the Mohammed Hussein case is more recent and specifically addresses the conditions in Italy. 4.6 The 2013 Asylum Information Database country report on Italy, also cited by the authors, states that some asylum seekers who did not have access to asylum centres were obliged to live in “self-organized settlements”, which are often overcrowded. The November 2013 update of that report indicates that those were the reception conditions in Italy for asylum seekers and not for aliens who had already been issued residence permits. Moreover, the 2012 United States of America Department of State country report on Italy, also cited by the authors, was already available when the Court handed down its decision in the Mohammed Hussein case. Information that some aliens lived in abandoned buildings in Rome and had limited access to public services was included in the Mohammed Hussein decision. The authors have relied primarily on reports and other background material relating to reception conditions in Italy that were relevant to asylum seekers, including returnees under the Dublin II Regulation, and not to persons, like themselves, who had already been granted subsidiary protection. 4.7 With reference to the more recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland,8 the State party notes that while the majority of judges ruled that there would be a violation of article 3 if the Swiss authorities were to send the applicants back to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that they would take charge of the applicants in a manner appropriate to the age of the children and that the family would be 6 7 8 6 Ibid., para. 38. Ibid., para.78. See European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland (application No. 29217/12), judgment of 4 November 2014. GE.16-10167