CCPR/C/124/D/2734/2016 illegally as a cleaning lady. Thus money for food was more important to her than the renewal of a residence permit that had not helped her during her stay in Italy. 5.5 Concerning her previous experience in Italy, the author mentions that she had braces fitted to her teeth when she was 17 years old and only because her teacher helped her. This does not amount to a personal and general guarantee that she will receive the necessary medical treatment upon return. Moreover, the State party’s assertion that she received medical treatment, was integrated into society and was eligible for housing only concerns her early years in Italy, when she was 17 years old and thus taken care of as a minor. It does not mean that she will receive the same assistance today, when the Italian asylum system is flooded due to a massive influx of refugees. This information is thus irrelevant. 5.6 With respect to her vulnerability, the author invokes the Jasin precedent to claim that the Danish authorities should have taken all circumstances into account instead of basing their decision on the assumption that, having lived in Italy for several years, the author is likely able to take care of herself and her son. The author has not had any contact with her husband, who has not shown any interest in her or in their son. Even if she does not wish to be married any longer, religious and cultural traditions prevent her from filing for divorce. 5.7 Finally, with regard to the State party’s denial of her fear of becoming homeless and not being able to receive assistance from the Italian authorities, the author invokes the UNHCR position in the sense that “a fear must be well-founded, but this does not mean there must have been actual persecution”.24 Additional submission from the State party 6.1 On 13 June 2018, the State party provided further observations to the Committee, generally referring to its observations of 18 August 2016. 6.2 While in a number of cases against Denmark the Committee has found that decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board in respect of the transfer of authors with minor children to Italy amounted to a violation of the Covenant, 25 those findings cannot lead to a different outcome in the present case. The case law of the Board and its assessment of the conditions of authors with minor children to be transferred to Italy are consistent with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Thus, according to its inadmissibility decision in E.T. and N.T. v. Switzerland and Italy,26 the European Court of Human Rights does not require individual guarantees from the Italian authorities. The State party observes that the National Operational Aliens Centre (Udlændingecenter Nordsjælland) of the North Zealand Police (Nordsjællands Politi) will notify the Italian authorities of the deportation in advance and collaborate with the Italian authorities on the deportation of the author and her son. The European Court has previously approved this practice. 27 6.3 In its observations of 18 August 2016, the State party addressed the issue of renewal of an expired residence permit. In its decision in E.T. and N.T., the European Court of Human Rights considered that the fact that the second applicant was born outside of Italy was not a barrier to that person’s removal to Italy. The Danish Refugee Appeals Board also took into account the author’s previous experience in Italy. The author has thus not identified any procedural defects in the Board’s decision. 6.4 The State party lastly refers to a recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which recalled the general principle that it is for the domestic authorities to assess 24 25 26 27 8 UNHCR, An Overview of Protection Issues in Europe, p. 87. Jasin v. Denmark; Abdilafir Abubakar Ali and Mayul Ali Mohamad v. Denmark (CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014); Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015); Raziyeh Rezaifar v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014); and Hibaq Said Hashi v. Denmark (CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014). Application No. 79480/13, judgment of 30 May 2017. See, e.g., European Court of Human Rights, F.M. and Others v. Denmark (application No. 20159/16), judgment of 13 September 2016. GE.19-02298