CCPR/C/124/D/2734/2016 4.6 The background information invoked by the author 15 does not contain any new information on the general conditions in Italy for persons already granted residence that was not available to the European Court of Human Rights when it ruled in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others that the return to Italy of the applicants in that case would not amount to treatment proscribed by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, the author relies primarily on reports and other background material relating to reception conditions in Italy that were relevant to asylum seekers, including returnees under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (Dublin III Regulation), and not to persons – like herself – who had already been granted subsidiary protection.16 4.7 With regard to the author’s material and social conditions during her stay in Italy from 2008 to 2015, the report of the asylum screening interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 23 July 2015 reveals that the author stayed partially at reception centres and partially at a help centre in Cartegna. She had a job during some periods of her stay, her residence permit was renewed at least once and she received medical treatment. She also had no problems with the authorities, nor with private individuals or groups during her stay in Italy. 4.8 Regarding the author’s reference to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others, in that ruling, the Court reiterated that the mere return to a country where one’s economic position would be worse than in the expelling State party was not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It stated that article 3 could not be interpreted as obliging States parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home, and that it did not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living. 17 Moreover, the Court indicated that, in the absence of exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds against removal, the fact that the applicant’s material and social living conditions would be significantly reduced if he or she were to be removed from the contracting State was not sufficient in itself to give rise to a breach of article 3.18 Furthermore, it cannot be inferred from the judgment of the Court in Tarakhel v. Switzerland, which concerned a family with the status of asylum seekers in Italy, that States are required to obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities before deporting individuals or families in need of protection who have already been granted residence in Italy. 4.9 The Danish authorities consulted the Italian authorities in the summer of 2015 about the possibility for asylum seekers to enter Italy as their country of first asylum if their residence permits had lapsed. The Italian authorities confirmed that an alien with a residence permit for Italy who was recognized as a refugee or had protection status could apply for a renewal of the residence permit upon re-entry into Italy, even after the expiry of the residence permit. An alien whose residence permit had expired could also lawfully enter Italy for the purpose of having his or her residence permit renewed. However, during the asylum screening interview of 23 July 2015, the author had declared that she considered it a bothersome process to renew her residence permit because she had to go to the immigration office and queue up for a long time. When the author was asked why she had not had her most recent Italian residence permit renewed, she replied that she should have applied for a new residence permit on 6 July 2015, but she had other plans for that day. The European Court of Human Rights has also ruled on several occasions that Italy can serve as the 15 16 17 18 GE.19-02298 In particular the Swiss Refugee Council report of October 2013 and the June 2015 report published by the United States Department of State. The report published in December 2012 by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, the Asylum Information Database report of May 2013 and the June 2013 report published by the Jesuit Refugee Service Europe. Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others, para. 70. Ibid., para. 71. 5