CCPR/C/124/D/2734/2016 question was to be returned to Italy without the Swiss authorities having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of, especially the children, there would be a violation of article 3 of the European Convention. 3.5 Therefore, if the author and her son were to return to Italy, they would be at a real risk of facing inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to the best interests of the child because, based on her previous experience and subsequent developments, they would be exposed to destitution and homelessness, with no prospect of finding a durable humanitarian solution. The author draws attention to her status as a single mother with a newborn child and recalls that she did not receive any assistance or support from the Italian authorities in securing basic needs such as food, housing or employment or in enabling her to integrate into Italian society. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 18 August 2016, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. It submits that the communication is not substantiated, as the author has not demonstrated any possible breach of the Covenant if she were deported to Italy. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board 11 and the legislation applying to asylum proceedings in Italy. 12 Regarding the admissibility of the communication, the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under article 7 of the Covenant, in the absence of substantial grounds for believing that she is in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if she were deported to Italy. 4.3 Regarding the merits of the communication, the author has failed to establish that her return to Italy would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, States parties are under an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, whether in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.13 4.4 The State party recalls that it cannot be required that asylum seekers will be provided with exactly the same social living standards as the country’s own nationals. The core of the protection concept is that the persons must enjoy personal safety both when they enter and when they stay in the first country of asylum. Moreover, it follows from both the jurisprudence of the Committee and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights that conditions in Italy are not generally of such a nature that it would be contrary to article 7 of the Covenant to deport individuals to Italy pursuant to the principle of the country of first asylum. 4.5 The author claimed that, upon her return to Italy, she and her son will not have access to accommodation and will consequently be faced with homelessness and destitution. This submission has not been specifically substantiated or rendered probable and is also inconsistent with the background information available on living conditions of recognized refugees in Italy,14 as well as with the author’s own experience. After assessing the relevant background material on Italy, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board found that the general socioeconomic conditions of refugees granted residence could not independently lead to the conclusion that the author could not be returned to Italy as her country of first asylum. 11 12 13 14 4 Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. Sections 7 (1)−(3) and 31 (1)–(2) of the Aliens Act. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2. Including material published by UNHCR, the Asylum Information Database and the Swiss Refugee Council. GE.19-02298