CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014 the vulnerability of such persons and that could transform a situation that is tolerable for most into an intolerable one for others. They should also take into account, in cases considered under the Dublin Regulation, the previous experiences of the removed individuals in the first country of asylum, which may underscore the special risks that they are likely to face and may thus render their return to the first country of asylum a particularly traumatic experience for them.29 9.8 The Committee notes the information provided to the State party by the Italian authorities according to which an alien who has been granted residency in Italy as a recognized refugee or has been granted protection status may submit a request to renew his or her expired residence permit upon re-entry into Italy. 9.9 However, the Committee considers that the State party did not fully examine the author’s claims, based on her personal circumstances, that, despite being granted residency in Italy, she would face unbearable living conditions there. 9.10 The Committee recalls that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk a person might face if deported30 and considers that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the author and her son would face in Italy, rather than rely on general reports and on the assumption that, as the author had benefited from subsidiary protection in the past, she would, in principle, be entitled to the same level of subsidiary protection today. The Committee notes that the author was able to stay in reception facilities in the past. However, according to the author’s uncontested allegations: she faced poor living conditions, even during her pregnancy, since she slept under a shed roof on a mattress without sheets and with only one meal per day; she has no education; and, although she acknowledged that she had received many documents from the Italian authorities, she was not aware that she had a residence permit to live in Italy. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that, owing to the difficulties in getting access to sufficient food and medical care in Italy, she was undernourished, fainted often and almost had a miscarriage. The information before the Committee shows that persons in a situation similar to that of the author often end up living on the streets or in precarious and unsafe conditions unsuitable, in particular, for small children. However, the Board’s decision failed to assess the author’s personal past experience in Italy and the foreseeable consequences of forcibly returning her. Against this background, the Committee considers that the State party failed to give due consideration to the special vulnerability of the author, a single mother with no education, with a 5-year-old child, and with no previous integration into Italian society. Notwithstanding her formal entitlement to subsidiary protection in Italy, there is no indication that, in practice, the author would actually be able to find accommodation and provide for herself and her child in the absence of assistance from the Italian authorities. The State party also failed to seek effective assurances from the Italian authorities that the author and her son would be received in conditions compatible with their status as asylum seekers entitled to temporary protection and the guarantees under article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, the State party failed to request Italy to undertake: (a) to renew the author’s residence permit and to issue a 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.31 9.11 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. 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. 29 30 31 10 See Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark, para. 7.7. See, for example, Pillai et al. v. Canada, paras. 11.2 and 11.4; and Ali and Mohamad v. Denmark, para. 7.8. See Jasin v. Denmark, para. 8.9; Ali and Mohamad v. Denmark, para. 7.8; and Ahmed v. Denmark, para. 13.8.