CCPR/C/125/D/2672/2015 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 breach of article 3”, or that, “while the general 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 shown to disclose systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group of people.” 4 Moreover, the State party informs the Committee that, according to information provided by the Italian authorities, the author would be able to enter Italy and, potentially, request a renewal of his residence permit in the event it had expired. According to information provided in the Asylum Information Database Country Report: Italy published in January 2015, refugees have the same right to receive medical treatment as Italian nationals. The State party also submits that the facts of a decision of the Committee in another case against Denmark markedly differ from the present one, because that case concerned the deportation of a single mother with three minor children to Italy. 5 In the present case, the issue at stake is the deportation of a single, young and healthy man with a recognized refugee status. Lastly, regarding the author’s allegations of violence suffered from the acts of Italian officials or of being exposed to violence and theft because forced to live in the streets, the State party submits that the author may report any of these complaints before Italian domestic bodies. 4.6 The State party submits that the author’s communication merely reflects that he disagrees with the assessment of his specific circumstances and the background information considered by the Refugee Appeals Board. In his communication, the author failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factor that the Refugee Appeals Board had failed to take properly into account. The State party also submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of fact made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. Hence, the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if deported to Italy. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 30 August 2016, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. The author reiterates his previous arguments and insists that Italy does not have the capacity to house the number of refugees currently present in country due to the increased number of Syrian refugees arriving there. 5.2 The author informs the Committee that his brother is currently living in Denmark, where he has applied for asylum. Hence, the deportation of the author by the State party to Italy would also entail a violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning his right to family life. The author claims to have the right to have his asylum application processed in Denmark, where he has a documented family member. Additional submissions by the parties 6.1 On 21 December 2016, the State party argued that the author’s additional observations of 30 August 2016 seemed to provide no essential new and specific information on the author’s personal situation. 6.2 Concerning the author’s claims about his right to family life because his brother is currently living in Denmark, the State party informs the Committee that the author’s brother was in fact granted residence in Denmark on 7 April 2015 under paragraph 7, subsection 1 of the Aliens Act. The State party submits that this circumstance cannot independently lead to a different assessment of the author’s case, including the assessment that Italy, where the author had already been granted residence as a recognized refugee, can be considered the author’s country of first asylum. 4 5 4 European Court of Human Rights, Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy (application No. 27725/10), 2 April 2013, paras. 71 and 78. See Warda Osman Jasin et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014), para. 8.4.