CCPR/C/114/D/2428/2014 author and her two children to Italy was not a consequence of the decision made by the State party authorities, nor because of the existence of the author’s permit in Italy, and it is therefore not based upon the principle of “first country of asylum” under the Dublin Regulation. The Danish authorities have taken steps to return the author and her children to Italy solely because the author herself had requested such return. 4.11 In response to the author’s allegations concerning the humanitarian situation in Italy, the State party refers to the 2013 inadmissibility decision delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in Samsam Mohammed Hussein.7 Taking into account the reports drawn up by both Governments and non-governmental organizations, the Court found that, concerning the then-current conditions in Italy, “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”. The Court found that the applicant’s allegations had been therefore manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible and that the applicant could be returned to Italy. The State party considers that, although the author has relied upon the Court’s finding in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011), the Court’s decision in the Hussein case (2013) is more recent and specifically addresses the conditions in Italy. Indeed, in its decision in Hussein, the Court noted that those who had been 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 and benefit from family reunification and from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. 4.12 According to the State party, the decision of Tarakhel v. Switzerland cannot be interpreted as implying that States should obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities where the applicants, like the author, hold a valid residence permit, and are thus entitled to work and to social benefits. 4.13 Consequently, the State party concludes that it will not constitute a breach of article 7 to deport the author and her children to Italy, which the author herself has requested. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In her comments dated 23 February 2015, the author disputes the State party’s statement that she had agreed to return “voluntarily” to Italy, and states that it is not and was not the request of the author to return to Italy, having sought protection in Denmark. In practice, upon final rejection of asylum in Denmark, applicants are provided with a deadline to leave Denmark, typically within 15 days of the rejection. If the asylum seeker does not leave voluntarily, the national police is responsible for arranging the deportation, and the failed asylum seeker is called for a hearing, during which he or she is asked whether he or she wishes to leave voluntarily. The asylum seeker is asked to sign a “statement of cooperation”. If the asylum seeker informs the hearing that he or she does not wish to leave voluntarily, the police then informs the asylum seekers of the possibility of sanctions, such as reduced or no financial benefits, the duty to report to the police or detention. Therefore, although the author signed a “statement of cooperation”, it is not possible to speak of a genuine voluntary departure. The author only wanted to cooperate with the authorities in order to be allowed to stay in her current asylum camp, where her oldest daughter went to school. Thus, she was signing to avoid detention. 7 Samsam Mohammad Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy (27725/10). 7