CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014 to medical assistance is acquired at the moment of registering the asylum request and that this right continues even during the renewal of a stay permit. In addition, it appears from the interview report by the Danish National Police on 16 August 2012 that the author stated that “she had been hospitalized in Italy”. According to the report of the interview conducted by the Immigration Service on 18 November 2013, the author provided the following information: “At that time, the applicant had been ill and had been treated at the hospital … . The applicant stated that she had in fact not been hospitalized, but that a nurse had visited her at home in a rural dwelling that she had lived in at that time. She had also been treated there. The applicant had left Italy right after she had recovered.” 6.3 Unlike in Jasin v. Denmark, in the present case neither the author nor her son suffers from any diseases requiring medical treatment and no exceptional circumstances exist. The State party’s authorities adequately took into account the information provided by the author on her own experience. In the case of A.A.I. and A.H.A. v. Denmark, 21 the Committee found the communication inadmissible, as the authors’ previous experiences in Italy did not substantiate their claim that, if returned to Italy, they would be at a real risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Most recently, the European Court stated in a case concerning the deportation of a single mother and her two minor children to Italy that “the applicant has not demonstrated that her future prospects, if returned to Italy with her children, whether looked at from a material, physical or psychological perspective, disclose a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship that is severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3”.22 7. On 7 October 2016, the author reiterated her previous allegations and argued that she, as single mother with a minor child, will find herself in a similar vulnerable position as the authors and their children in Jasin v. Denmark and Ali and Mohamad v. Denmark. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. The Committee considers, however, that the author has sufficiently substantiated her claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that deporting her and her minor son to Italy, based on the principle of first country of asylum according to the Dublin Regulation, would expose them to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author bases her arguments on, inter alia: the actual treatment she received in Italy; her 21 22 8 Communication No. 2402/2014, A.A.I. and A.H.A. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 29 March 2016. See N.A. and Others v. Denmark (application No. 15636/16), decision of 28 June 2016, para. 32.