CCPR/C/125/D/2672/2015 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 9 May 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party claims that the communication should be considered inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation of the author’s risk of being subjected to torture or other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon his return to Italy. 4.2 The State party describes the proceedings before the Refugee Appeals Board. 3 4.3 The State party informs the Committee that, pursuant to paragraph 7, subsection 3 of the Aliens Act, the question on the issue at stake in the author’s asylum application was to determine whether Italy could be considered the author’s first country of asylum. The State party recalls that, on 28 July 2014, the Italian authorities informed the Danish authorities that the author had been granted refugee status in Italy. Also, on 14 January 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board had rejected the author’s asylum application and found that the author would be protected against refoulement in Italy, and that it would be possible for him to enter and stay lawfully in Italy, and that his personal integrity and safety had to be assumed to be guaranteed to the extent necessary in that country. That decision entailed an assessment of whether the social and economic conditions in Italy would allow the author to enjoy, to some extent, basic rights, making reference to chapters II to V of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and to Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Executive Committee conclusion No. 58 (1989). The State party submits, however, that it cannot be required to ensure that the asylum seeker enjoys exactly the same social living standards as the country’s own nationals; rather, it must ensure that their personal integrity are protected. Moreover, the State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board had found that Italy can be considered a first country of asylum in a number of cases, on the basis of most recent background information on the conditions of refugees in Italy. The State party also observes that Italy is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Covenant. Lastly, the State party observes that the author’s allegation that he stayed in the Syrian Arab Republic in 2013 and 2014, which was found to be not credible and fabricated for the occasion, is irrelevant to the assessment of whether Italy can be considered a country of first asylum. 4.4 The State party notes that the author has not produced any new information in his complaint to the Committee, and that all relevant background information was made available to and considered by the Refugee Appeals Board in its decision of 14 January 2015. After a thorough assessment of the relevant background information and the author’s individual circumstances, the Board concluded that the author was not at risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. Concerning the author’s reference to the Dublin Regulation and the UNHCR Recommendations on Important Aspects of Refugee Protection in Italy of July 2013, the State party observes that the recommendations relate mainly to reception conditions in Italy for asylum seekers, and therefore not to aliens who have been granted residence. Furthermore, the State party observes that the author has also made reference to the case law of the European Court of Justice, which is of relevance to asylum seekers, including to “Dublin” returnees to Italy, and not to persons who, like the author, have already been granted refugee status. 4.5 On the basis of an overall assessment of the background information available and the information submitted by the author, the State party concludes there is no basis to suggest that the author would be at a particular risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant because of the general social and economic conditions of “Dublin” returnees or refugees in Italy. As a person with a recognized refugee status, the author has access to a renewable residence permit and is entitled to, inter alia, 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 national law. The State party supports its allegations by making reference to a recent case of the European Court of Human Rights that, “in the absence of exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds against removal, the fact that the applicant’s material and social 3 See O.H.A. v. Demark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. 3