CCPR/C/123/D/2575/2015 authorities contacted the Danish Embassy in Italy to ensure that recognized refugees or individuals with protection status could have their residence permits renewed and would not be considered as asylum seekers under Italian law. On 8 February 2008, the Embassy confirmed that recognized refugees or individuals with subsidiary protection status could apply for renewal of a residence permit after their entry to Italy, even if the residence permit had expired after entry into Denmark. 5.7 Moreover, the State party relies on a report issued by the Swiss Refugee Council in 2016, from which it appears that in Italy “people with protection status have the same social rights as native Italians. This also applies to social benefits.”18 The State party observes in that regard that the author has not produced any evidence that she contacted the authorities or that the authorities refused to help her, including in connection with her pregnancy. 5.8 The State party underlines the fact that the author has been living in Italy for more than six years. She worked in the informal sector for some years 19 and was able to rent a room in an apartment during this period. There is therefore no information available to indicate that the author would not be able to find a job again which would enable her to support herself and her child. 5.9 Furthermore, the State party refers to the decision of inadmissibility of the European Court of Human Rights in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy concerning the treatment of asylum seekers, persons granted subsidiary protection in Italy and returnees, in accordance with the Dublin Regulation. 20 Taking into account the reports of governmental and non-governmental organizations, the Court considered that “while the general situation and living conditions in Italy of asylum seekers, accepted refugees and aliens who have been granted a residence permit for international protection or humanitarian purposes may disclose some shortcomings … it has not been shown to disclose a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group of people, as was the case in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece”. 21 According to the State party, the Court noted that a person granted subsidiary protection in Italy would be provided with a three-year renewable residence permit that allowed the holder to work, obtain a travel document for aliens, apply for family reunification and benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. Similarly, an alien is able to apply for the renewal of his or her residence permit upon its expiry. In that case, the Court found the applicant’s allegations manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible and considered that the applicant could be returned to Italy. 5.10 With regard to the present case, the State party considers that, although the author has relied on the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011), its decision in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy (2013) is more recent and specifically addresses the conditions in Italy. The State party therefore maintains that, as the Court noted, a person granted subsidiary protection in Italy would be provided with a three-year renewable residence permit that allows the holder to work, obtain a travel document for aliens, apply for family reunification and benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. 5.11 The State party further claims that the lack of social or financial assistance is generally not sufficient to trigger the minimum threshold for the application of article 7 of the Covenant. With regard to the Committee’s Views adopted in Jasin v. Denmark, the State party recalls that the case involved extraordinary circumstances, namely the fact that the author suffered from a serious form of asthma and required medication.22 In the present case, the author has stated that she was in possession of an Italian health card. The State party also recalls that according to the author’s statements, she and her child are in good 18 19 20 21 22 6 See Swiss Refugee Council, “Reception conditions in Italy: report on the current situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin returnees” (August 2016), p. 45. The State party does not provide additional information about the duration. See Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy (application No. 27725/10), decision adopted on 2 April 2013, para. 78. Ibid. See Jasin v. Denmark, para. 8.4. GE.19-07290