CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014 kept together, the Court reiterated that article 3 could not be interpreted as obliging the high contracting parties to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home, nor did article 3 entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living. 9 In the opinion of the State party, the Tarakhel case, which concerned a family with the status of asylum seekers in Italy, does not deviate from the findings in the Court’s previous case law on individuals and families with a residence permit for Italy, as expressed in, inter alia, the Mohammed Hussein decision. Accordingly, the State party expresses the view that it cannot be inferred from the Tarakhel decision that States are required to obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities before returning individuals or families in need of protection who had already been granted residence permits in Italy. 4.8 In that respect, the State party reiterates that the decision in the Mohammed Hussein case indicates that persons recognized as refugees or granted subsidiary protection in Italy are entitled to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education under Italian domestic law. 4.9 Accordingly, the State party submits that article 7 of the Covenant does not prevent it from enforcing the Dublin II Regulation in respect of individuals or families who have been granted residence permits in Italy, as is the case for the authors. 4.10 Consequently, the State party concludes that its deportation of the authors and their children to Italy would not constitute a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In their comments dated 28 January 2015, the authors assert that the living conditions in Italy for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international subsidiary protection are similar, since there is no effective integration scheme in Italy. Asylum seekers and recipients of subsidiary protection often face the same severe difficulties in finding basic shelter, access to sanitary facilities and food. 10 The authors refer to a report of the Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, which states that “the real problem concerns those who are sent back to Italy and who already have some kind of protection. Probably they would have already stayed in at least one of the accommodation options available and, if they left the centre voluntarily before the established time, they have no right to go back to the accommodation system”, thus are no longer entitled to accommodation in the Government reception centres for asylum seekers (p. 152). Moreover, most of the people occupying abandoned buildings in Rome fall into that category. The findings show that the lack of places to stay is a major problem, especially for returnees who are, in most cases, holders of international or humanitarian protection (p. 161). The Swiss Refugee Council report quoted by the authors also indicated that it is extremely difficult for people who have been granted protection status who are returned to Italy to find accommodation. 11 5.2 The authors submit that, regardless of whether they have been granted international protection or not, they risk facing serious difficulties in finding shelter, access to sanitation facilities and food. Therefore, based on the above-mentioned reports and the authors’ previous experiences, they submit that living conditions in Italy for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection are similar, and that they are even worse for beneficiaries of international protection who return to Italy, as would be the case for them. 9 10 11 GE.16-10167 Ibid., para. 95. The authors refer to their initial communication and the reports cited therein. Swiss Refugee Council, “Reception conditions in Italy”, pp. 4-5. 7