CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014 4.6 The State party also refers to the 2013 country report on Italy cited by the author — prepared as part of the Asylum Information Database project — according to which some asylum seekers who did not have access to asylum centres were obliged to live in “selforganized settlements”, which are often overcrowded. The State party submits that the report was updated in December 2013 and that the country report indicates that those were the reception conditions in Italy for asylum seekers and not for aliens who, like the author, had already been issued residence permits. Likewise, the author has mainly referred to reports and other background material concerning reception conditions in Italy that are only relevant to asylum seekers, including returnees to Italy under the Dublin Regulation, and not to persons who have already been granted subsidiary protection in Italy. Furthermore, as compared with the Court’s decision in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy, there is no new information on the general conditions in Italy of persons who have been granted a residence permit. 4.7 The State party refers to another judgment of the Court, Tarakhel v. Switzerland,13 in which the Court found that the return of an Afghan family from Switzerland to Italy would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) if the Swiss authorities were to send the asylum seekers back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken in charge in a manner adapted to the age of their children and that the family would be kept together. The State party considers that the judgment rendered in Tarakhel v. Switzerland does not deviate from the Court’s jurisprudence regarding individuals and families with residence permits for Italy,14 as it concerns a case involving asylum seekers. It submits that States parties cannot be expected to obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities before returning individuals or families in need of protection who have already been granted residence in Italy. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 15 January 2016, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations and reiterated her previous remarks about a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. She asserts that the living conditions in Italy for asylum seekers and the beneficiaries of international (subsidiary) protection are similar, since there is no effective integration scheme in place. Asylum seekers and recipients of subsidiary protection thus often face the same severe difficulties in Italy finding basic shelter, access to sanitary facilities and food.15 The fact that the reports cited in her original communication focus mainly on reception facilities for asylum seekers does not make the information regarding the living conditions for beneficiaries of international protection less valid. 5.2 The author further disputes the interpretation of the jurisprudence of the European Court referred to by the State party. The author contends that the passages highlighted by the State party in the Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy case describe the formal relevant Italian legislation provided by the Italian authorities. 16 However, this information on the reception conditions of asylum seekers and refugees does not correspond to the findings of UNHCR and NGOs.17 5.3 Contrary to the State party’s interpretation, a more relevant case in the Court’s jurisprudence is Tarakhel v. Switzerland, given that, as stated above, the living conditions and difficulties in finding shelter, health assistance and food are similar for asylum seekers and persons who have already been granted protection. In Tarakhel v. Switzerland, the 13 14 15 16 17 6 Application No. 29217/12, judgment of 4 November 2014. As established in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy. See United States of America, Department of State, 2012 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices — Italy; 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; and Asylum Information Database, “National country report: Italy”. Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy, paras. 38-39. Ibid., paras. 77-78.