CCPR/C/124/D/2734/2016 3.2 Since she was told to leave the Italian reception facilities in 2009, the author has not been able to find housing, work or any durable humanitarian solution in Italy. The Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in its conclusion No. 58 (XL), stated that the principle of first country of asylum should be applied only if the applicant is permitted to remain there upon return and is treated in accordance with recognized basic human standards until a durable solution is found (A/44/12/Add.1, para. 25). Reception conditions in Italy and basic human standards for refugees with valid or expired residence permits do not comply with international obligations of protection.4 It is stated in a number of reports that international protection seekers returning to Italy who had already been granted a form of protection and benefited from the reception system when they were in Italy are not entitled to accommodation in the reception facilities in Italy. 5 There is also no statutory procedure for identifying vulnerable persons – either in the Italian reception system or in the asylum system – and asylum seekers in Italy experience severe difficulties in gaining access to health services. 6 3.3 In its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Committee held that it is the duty of the State party to afford everyone protection against the acts prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant, and that they must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of extradition, expulsion or refoulement. The European Court of Human Rights, in particular in its judgment in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece,7 considered that it was the responsibility of the Belgian authorities not to merely assume that the applicant would be treated in conformity with the standards of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) in the first country of asylum – Greece – but, on the contrary, to first verify how the Greek authorities applied their legislation on asylum in practice. Had they done this, they would have seen that the risks faced by the applicant were real and individual enough to fall within the scope of article 3 of the European Convention. 3.4 In its inadmissibility decision in the case of Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy,8 the European Court of Human Rights stated that the return of the applicant, a single Somali woman with two children, from the Netherlands to Italy would not amount to a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court noted that the Netherlands authorities would give prior notice to their Italian counterparts of the transfer of the applicant and her children, thus allowing the Italian authorities to prepare for their arrival. The Court further noted that the applicant, as a single mother of two small children, remained eligible for special consideration as a vulnerable person with regard to admission to reception facilities for asylum seekers. 9 In Tarakhel v. Switzerland, 10 the European Court of Human Rights found that if the family in 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GE.19-02298 The author refers to Swiss Refugee Council, Reception Conditions in Italy: Report on the Current Situation of Asylum Seekers and Beneficiaries of Protection, in Particular Dublin Returnees (Bern, October 2013); Asylum Information Database, National Country Report: Italy (May 2013); and Council of Europe, “Report by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his visit to Italy from 3 to 6 July 2012”, 18 September 2012 (CommDH(2012)26). European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Dublin II Regulation: National Report –Italy, European network for technical cooperation on the application of the Dublin II Regulation (19 December 2012); Asylum Information Database, Italy (May 2013), p. 37; United States Department of State, “Italy 2014 Human Rights Report”, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014; Swiss Refugee Council, Reception conditions in Italy (October 2013), pp. 4–5; and Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, Protection Interrupted: The Dublin Regulation’s Impact on Asylum Seekers’ Protection (Brussels, June 2013), pp. 152 and 161. The author cites Council of Europe, “Report by Nils Muižnieks”, paras. 143 and 160; Asylum Information Database, Italy, pp. 45–46; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “UNHCR Recommendations on Important Aspects of Refugee Protection in Italy, July 2013”, p. 12; and Swiss Refugee Council, Reception Conditions in Italy. Application No. 30696/09, judgment of 21 January 2011, para. 359. Application No. 27725/10, judgment of 2 April 2013. Ibid., para. 77. Application No. 29217/12, judgment of 4 November 2014, para. 119. 3