CAT/C/64/D/742/2016 total of 39,600 asylum seekers from Italy to other European Union countries constitutes an express recognition by the European Union institutions that Italy is no longer able to process the applications of asylum seekers, thus exposing them to the risk of fundamental rights violations, including violations of the non-refoulement principle. In the decision, the European Council characterizes the situation in Italy as an exceptional emergency situation. The European Court of Human Rights — in Tarakhel v. Switzerland5 — also noted the serious problems faced by the Italian authorities since 2011 to receive asylum seekers, including the significant difficulties in accommodating them and ensuring adequate living conditions and access to medical care. Both the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee6 have recognized the need to obtain personal assurances from the Italian authorities in cases of deportations to Italy in application of the Dublin III Regulation. 3.4 The complainant adds that, according to a report by the Swiss Refugee Council, 7 shelters in Italy are deemed inadequate to hold persons in situations of vulnerability, such as victims of torture. These victims might end up living in the streets following their return to Italy or in squats governed by migrants, which are paying and inadequate for persons in situations of vulnerability.8 According to a recent report by Doctors without Borders,9 in December 2015, of the over 100,000 migrants accommodated in reception centres in Italy, nearly 80,000 are placed in extraordinary reception centres; 19,000 are in centres that are part of the Protection System for Asylum Seekers and Refugees; and just over 7,000 are located in government centres for the initial reception of asylum seekers. 3.5 According to the Swiss Refugee Council, 10 access to medical treatment is limited, in particular specialized psychiatric treatment, given the absence of information on how to access it and the lack of interpretation services for consultations with specialists. In addition to finding that there was a high risk that asylum seekers might live in the streets, the Refugee Council found that such persons had no access to psychological treatment of the kind that the complainant required. 3.6 The complainant claims that he was denied access to a lawyer, both at first instance and on appeal, that the Federal Administrative Tribunal rejected his offer to provide medical evidence, and that it adopted a single-judge simplified procedure and imposed court costs on him despite his proven indigence. He argues that these facts constitute a violation of his right to an effective remedy contained in article 14 of the Convention. Furthermore, in the light of the above information, and his own experience when he was deported to Italy, the complainant claims that he would probably not be able to find accommodation or specialized medical treatment in Italy comparable to the treatment he is already receiving in Switzerland. The separation from his brother would also have particularly traumatizing effects on his mental health and entail a risk of re-traumatization. The lack of emotional support and guarantees of access to accommodation and specialized medical treatment in Italy would prevent the complainant’s rehabilitation as a victim of torture, in violation of article 14 of the Convention. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Greece should, on the date of entry into force of this Decision, each present a road map to the Commission which should include adequate measures in the area of asylum, first reception and return, enhancing the capacity, quality and efficiency of their systems in these areas, as well as measures to ensure appropriate implementation of this Decision with a view to allowing them to better cope, after the end of the application of this Decision, with a possible increased inflow of migrants on their territories.” See Tarakhel v. Switzerland (application No. 29217/12), judgment of 4 November 2014, para. 120. See Jasin et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014), para. 8.9, and Tarakhel v. Switzerland, para. 122. The complainant cites 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). Ibid. Doctors without Borders, “Neglected trauma — asylum seekers in Italy: an analysis of mental health distress and access to healthcare” (Rome, 15 July 2016). Swiss Refugee Council, Reception Conditions in Italy. 5