CCPR/C/123/D/2575/2015 health. Accordingly, the State party submits that the Committee’s decision in Jasin v. Denmark cannot serve as a precedent for it to determine whether the present communication discloses any violation by the State party. 5.12 The State party also submits that the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that she and her child would face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if deported to Italy. 5.13 Accordingly, the State party concludes that the author is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of her asylum application reassessed. Indeed, the author merely disagrees with the domestic decisions and fails to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Refugee Appeals Board has failed to take properly into account. It argues that the Committee should instead give considerable weight to the facts established by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 20 November 2017, the author submitted additional comments on the State party’s observations. The author recalls that her Italian residence permit has expired and that she previously had great difficulty renewing it. In addition, she is concerned about the fact that she might not be able to register her son, who was born in Denmark, and has no registration record or residence permit in Italy. 6.2 The author recalls that she previously lived in Italy in extremely precarious conditions. Despite seeking assistance from the local Italian authorities on several occasions, she did not receive any social or housing support and was left to find her own accommodation. Further, her situation is now very different from the time she was living there by herself, since she now has to take care of her son, which will be a disadvantage to her in finding a job. 6.3 The author also submits that people with protection status in Italy mostly live in precarious conditions. She relies on a report issued by the Swiss Refugee Council in 2016, stating that it can be difficult for people with protection status in Italy to find housing and access social assistance.23 The report further states that most refugees would often end up living in squats or on the streets, where there is a risk of danger and violence, and concludes that conditions in the squats are inadequate for children and pose a risk to their development. 6.4 According to the author, the State party has failed to seek effective assurances from the Italian authorities regarding the reception of the author and her son, similar to Jasin v. Denmark (para. 8.9). In that respect, the author claims that violations have been found by the Committee also in the cases of Hashi v. Denmark and Ahmed v. Denmark and that her case presents similar circumstances of a single mother with a child who previously experienced difficulties in Italy and has an expired residence permit.24 6.5 Finally, the author submits that a foreseeable consequence of her deportation to Italy would be that she will not have effective access to any integration support or housing. That will expose her and her minor son to a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, including threats to their personal integrity and risks of homelessness and destitution. State party’s additional observations on the author’s comments 7.1 On 4 June 2018, the State party submitted that the author’s additional observations of 20 November 2017 had not provided any new information on the personal circumstances of the author and her son, recalling the State party’s observations of 11 April 2017. It also indicated that the Refugee Appeals Board was aware that the Committee had found in a number of cases against Denmark that the decisions of the Board on the transfer of authors 23 24 GE.19-07290 See Swiss Refugee Council, “Reception conditions in Italy” (August 2016), pp. 41 to 44. See Hashi v. Denmark (CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014), para. 10, and Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), para. 14. 7