CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014 Court stated that the presumption that a State participating in the Dublin system will respect the fundamental rights in the European Convention on Human Rights is not irrebuttable. The Court found that, in the current situation in Italy, “the possibility that a significant number of asylum seekers may be left without accommodation or accommodated in overcrowded facilities without any privacy, or even in insalubrious or violent conditions, cannot be dismissed as unfounded”.18 The Court required Switzerland to obtain assurances from its Italian counterparts that the applicants (a family) would be received in facilities and conditions adapted to the age of the children; if such assurances were not made, Switzerland would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention by transferring them to Italy. The judgment in the Tarakhel v. Switzerland case seems to indicate that the assumption premise laid out in the decision in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy can no longer be regarded as sufficient. On the contrary, according to the Court, individual guarantees, especially those against destitution and harsh accommodation conditions for children, are required. The author argues that, in the light of this finding, the harsh conditions faced by recipients of subsidiary protection returning to Italy would fall within the scope of article 3 of the European Convention and article 7 of the Covenant. Accordingly, she reiterates that her and her child’s deportation to Italy would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.19 5.4 The author finally points out that returning families who have already been granted international protection might even face greater difficulties in finding shelter, access to sanitary facilities and food than returning asylum seekers, as the latter enjoy a minimum of protection under the Dublin Regulation system and, if fortunate, have access to reception facilities supported by the European Union. Returning families with international protection do not, however, have access to reception facilities and thus face the risk of homelessness immediately upon return, with little prospect of improving their situation due to the malfunctions of the Italian integration scheme for beneficiaries of international protection. In this connection, the author refers to the Committee’s Views in the case of Jasin v. Denmark,20 stressing that it is very similar to her case. Further submissions from the parties 6.1 On 5 October 2016, the State party reiterated its observations on admissibility and the merits. The State party noted that, according to the Italian authorities’ response to its consultation in the summer of 2015, an alien granted residency in Italy with refugee or protection status may apply for the renewal of his or her residence permit on his or her return to Italy, even if the residence permit has expired. The Italian authorities also informed the Danish authorities that, on his or her return to Italy, such an alien must contact the police station that issued the residence permit, which will subsequently forward the request to the proper authority and ask for verification of whether the conditions for renewal are met. The Italian authorities stated that an alien whose residence permit has expired may lawfully enter Italy for the purpose of having it renewed. Against this background, the State party finds that it can be considered a fact that the author, whose residence permit for protection status in Italy has expired, is entitled to enter Italy and apply to renew it. 6.2 The author’s claims about her experience in Italy are inconsistent with the background information on Italy available to the Board and the information provided by the author to the Danish National Police and the Immigration Service. According to the country report on Italy, published in December 2015 as part of the Asylum Information Database project (pp. 83 ff), refugees and aliens granted subsidiary protection, as in the author’s case, have the same right to medical treatment as Italian nationals. Furthermore, it appears that asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection benefit from health services free of charge on the basis of a self-declaration of destitution. It also appears that the right 18 19 20 See Tarakhel v. Switzerland, para. 115. The author quotes the European Court’s judgment in Tarakhel v. Switzerland, in which it indicated that, if no proper reception facilities adapted to children were available, “the conditions in question would attain the threshold of severity required to come within the scope of the prohibition under Article 3 of the Convention” (para. 119). Communication No. 2360/2014, Jasin v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, paras. 8.8-10. 7