CCPR/C/123/D/2575/2015 entitled to such accommodation.14 Most of those occupying abandoned buildings in Rome fall into this category. The author emphasizes that the lack of places in reception centres is a significant problem, especially for returnees who, like herself, have already benefited from international or subsidiary protection. 4.5 The author further claims that she and her child face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of homelessness if returned to Italy. She recalls that she previously experienced a complete lack of support from the Italian authorities when she was pregnant and homeless, and submits that refugees in Italy face serious barriers to access to health care. In that respect, the author submits that if she were returned to Italy, she would not have access to the basic health-care services that are essential for her young child. State party���s observations on the merits 5.1 On 11 April 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the present communication, mainly stating that article 7 of the Covenant would not be violated if the author and her child were deported to Italy. The State party did not challenge the admissibility of the communication. 5.2 Initially, the State party elaborates on the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 12 February 2016, rejecting the author’s asylum application. The State party affirms that it agrees with the decision, considering that the author will be entitled to adequate financial and social protection if returned to Italy, where, prior to her departure to Denmark, she was granted a residence permit. It underlines the findings of the Board, in which it considered that most of the author’s statements could be regarded as facts, except that she had contacted the Italian authorities in relation to the abuse she had allegedly suffered. In that respect, the Board considered that the author had made inconsistent statements. 5.3 The State party further describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board, which it considers to be an independent and quasi-judicial body, 15 and the legal basis of its decisions.16 It asserts that the Board is responsible not only for examining and bringing out information on the specific facts of the case, but also for providing the necessary background information, including on the situation in the asylum seeker’s country of origin or country of first asylum. 5.4 The State party further refers to the recent Views adopted by the Committee, in which it considered that “in the absence of evidence establishing that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board were manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary with respect to the author’s allegations, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s removal … would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant”.17 In the present case, the State party observes that the author did not establish in her communication to the Committee that the assessment made by the Board was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice with regard to the finding that Italy is a safe country of first asylum. 5.5 The State party acknowledges that, when considering whether a country can serve as a country of first asylum, the analysis must include socioeconomic aspects since asylum seekers must be treated in accordance with basic international human rights standards. However, the State party claims that it is not required that asylum seekers have exactly the same social living standards as the nationals of the country concerned. 5.6 The State party asserts that a residence permit in Italy serves as a travel document and entitles its holder to work, to access family reunification and to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. According to the State party, the duration of validity of residence permits has recently been extended to five years and can be renewed by the issuing authority upon re-entry. It affirms that its 14 15 16 17 GE.19-07290 See Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, Protection Interrupted: the Dublin Regulation’s Impact on Asylum Seekers’ Protection (Brussels, June 2013), pp. 152 and 161. See, for example, Ahmed v. Denmark, (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3. Section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act incorporates article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees into domestic law. Z v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014). 5