CCPR/C/123/D/2575/2015 permit to her child; and (b) to receive the author and her son in conditions adapted to the child’s age and the family’s vulnerable status that would enable them to remain in Italy. 35 9.12 Consequently, the Committee considers that the removal of the author and her son to Italy in her particular circumstances and without the aforementioned assurances would amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant by the State party. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the deportation of the author and her son to Italy without effective assurances would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, which establishes that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to proceed to a review of the author’s claim, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant, the Committee’s present Views and the need to obtain effective assurances from Italy, as set out in paragraph 9.11 above. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author and her son to Italy while their request for asylum is being reconsidered.36 12. By becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant. In addition, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred. The Committee therefore requests the State party to provide, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the present Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views, to have them translated into the official language of the State party and to ensure that they are widely disseminated. 35 36 GE.19-07290 See, for example, Jasin v. Denmark, para. 8.9; Ali and Mohamad v. Denmark, paras. 7.8 and 9; and Ahmed v. Denmark, para. 13.8. See general comment No. 31 and Hashi v. Denmark, para. 11. 11