CCPR/C/124/D/2734/2016 Annex I Individual opinion of José Manuel Santos Pais (dissenting) 1. I regret not being able to share the Committee’s decision, according to which removal of the author and her son to Italy would not violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. Quite surprisingly, circumstances in this case are very similar to those of a recent communication, Araya v. Denmark (CCPR/C/123/D/2575/2015), in which the Committee concluded instead that there had been a violation of article 7. 2. The author, who fled Somalia and applied for asylum in Italy in 2008, presents the communication on her own behalf and on behalf of her son. Once she was granted subsidiary protection by the Italian authorities and issued a residence permit, the author was then informed that she could no longer stay at a reception centre. She was only 17 years old and therefore for a long period of time she slept in a “help centre” shelter, if a place was available. However, if she arrived too late or there was no more room, she had to sleep on the streets. For several years the author sought help from the Italian authorities and tried to find housing and a regular job, but without success. She therefore faced destitution and was completely dependent on the help of volunteers and the one meal she received at the help centre. She also experienced repeated harassment from young persons in the street. When in 2015 she learned that her family (mother, father and six siblings, all with residence permits) resided in Denmark, she left Italy for Denmark. She was pregnant when she arrived. Her son was born there in 2015. 3. The author’s family has been a great support to her ever since and has helped her to take care of her baby. She has thus an all-encompassing and reliable family environment in Denmark. If, however, she were to be returned to Italy, the author would not benefit from such a family environment, given that her relationship with her husband, who lives in Italy, is not good, and that he does not want to assume the role of father of his newborn child. 4. Thus, if returned to Italy, the author and her son would face exceptional hardship, destitution and intolerable living conditions, similar to those the author had previously experienced in Italy, amounting to a real and personal risk of irreparable harm. There is indeed a real risk for the author of ending up on the streets or in precarious and unsafe conditions, particularly unsuitable for young children. 5. In the present case, Denmark has failed to adequately assess either the author’s personal past experience in Italy, during which time she faced homelessness and destitution, or the foreseeable consequences of forcibly returning her there, and has not given due consideration to her particular and increased vulnerability as a single mother with a newborn child. It also failed to verify whether the author and her son would have effective access to financial, medical and social assistance, as well as being protected from risks to their personal safety. It would, however, be relevant to determine whether the author would actually be able to find accommodation and to provide for herself and her child in the absence of assistance from the Italian authorities. This information would be particularly relevant as she is a single parent who will have to look for a job as well as look after her child, given that the father has no resources and has not shown any interest in providing for them, has no home or job and often lives on the streets. 6. In particular, Denmark failed to seek effective assurances from the Italian authorities that the author and her son would be received in conditions compatible with their status as asylum seekers, entitled to temporary protection and guarantees under article 7 of the Covenant. It also did not request Italy to undertake: (a) to renew the author’s residence permit, as part of her subsidiary protection, and to issue a permit to her child; or (b) to receive the author and her son in conditions suited to the child’s age and the family’s vulnerable status, enabling them to be kept together if they returned to Italy. 7. Most importantly the State party has failed to take into consideration the need to respect the right of the author’s son, under article 24 of the Covenant, to adequate measures of protection, since he was born in Denmark and has several relatives residing there. 12 GE.19-02298