CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014 financial and social conditions offered to her would be adequate for Italy to serve as her first country of asylum, with reference to section 7 (3) of the Aliens Act. Accordingly, the Board ordered the author to leave Denmark with her son within 15 days. 2.10 The author asserts that she has exhausted all domestic remedies in Denmark as the Board’s decision is final and cannot be appealed in the Danish courts. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that by forcibly returning her and her son to Italy, the State party would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant.6 Due to shortcomings concerning the reception conditions for asylum seekers and refugees with temporary residence permits in Italy, she and, in particular, her minor son would be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment; they would be destitute with no access to housing, food or health assistance. In this connection, she refers to the experience that she went through in Italy prior to her departure and points out that, despite her pregnancy, she was not able to find sufficient medical assistance, adequate housing nor any durable humanitarian solution. If deported, she would no longer be eligible for housing in a reception centre. Under those circumstances, her deportation would be contrary to the best interests of her child. 3.2 As regards the principle of first country of asylum, the author refers to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Executive Committee conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) on the problem of refugees and asylum seekers who move in an irregular manner from a country in which they had already found protection, according to which this principle should only be applied if, once returned to their first country of asylum, refugees and asylum seekers are permitted to remain there and be treated in accordance with recognized basic human standards until a durable solution is found for them. 3.3 The Italian reception system for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection is insufficient and does not comply with basic human standards and international obligations regarding protection. According to reports, hundreds of migrants, including asylum seekers, live in abandoned buildings in Rome and have limited access to public services. 7 Due to the lack of reception facilities and housing, many asylum seekers and refugees in Italy live on the streets and only occasionally receive food or shelter from churches and non-governmental organizations. Returnees who were granted international protection and benefited from the reception system when they first arrived in Italy are not entitled to accommodation in reception centres.8 The Jesuit Refugee Service, in its annual report for 2013, stated that there was a real problem as regards those who were sent back to Italy and who had already been granted some kind of protection. If someone voluntarily leaves one of the accommodation centres that are available upon arrival before the established time, they are no longer entitled to such accommodation. 9 Most of those occupying abandoned buildings in Rome fall into this category. The findings show that the lack of places to stay is a significant problem, especially for returnees who, in most cases, benefit from international or humanitarian protection. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 27 April 2015, the State party provided observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party considers that the author has failed to 6 7 8 9 4 See M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (application No. 30696/09), judgment of 15 December 2010; and Samsam Mohammad Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy. See United States of America, Department of State, 2012 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices — Italy (Washington, D.C., 19 April 2013). See Swiss Refugee Council, Reception Conditions in Italy: Report on the Current Situation of Asylum Seekers and Beneficiaries of Protection, in Particular Dublin Returnees, in Italy (Berne, August 2016); Asylum Information Database, “National country report: Italy” (May 2013); and European Council on Refugees and Exiles, “Dublin II Regulation: national report, European network for technical cooperation of the application of the Dublin II Regulation — Italy” (December 2012). Jesuit Refugee Service, Protection Interrupted — The Dublin Regulation’s Impact on Asylum Seekers’ Protection (Brussels, June 2013), pp. 152 and 161.