CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014 particular vulnerability as a single mother with a small child; the general reception facilities for asylum seekers in Italy; and the failure of the Italian integration scheme for beneficiaries of international protection, as described in various reports. 9.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31, 23 in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high.24 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists,25 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.26 9.4 The Committee notes that the author has not challenged the information provided by the Italian authorities to the Danish Immigration Service that she was granted subsidiary protection in Italy with a residence permit that expired on 22 December 2014. The Committee further notes the author’s allegation that, although she was pregnant and had health problems at the time she was living in Italy, she was not given any special care and had difficulties getting food and access to basic sanitary facilities. 9.5 The Committee notes the various reports submitted by the author highlighting the lack of available places in the reception facilities in Italy for asylum seekers and returnees under the Dublin Regulation. The Committee notes in particular the author’s submission that returnees, like herself, who had already been granted a form of protection and benefited from the reception facilities when they were in Italy are no longer entitled to accommodation in the public reception centres for asylum seekers.27 The Committee also notes that the author submits that returnees also face severe difficulties in Italy finding access to sanitary facilities and food. 9.6 The Committee notes the finding of the Board that Italy should be considered the first country of asylum in the present case and the position of the State party that such a country is obliged to provide asylum seekers with basic human standards, although it is not required that such persons have the same social and living standards as nationals of the country (see paragraph 4.4 above). The Committee also notes that the State party also referred to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Court stated that, although the situation in Italy had its shortcomings, it had not disclosed a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers (see paragraph 4.5 above). 9.7 The Committee recalls that States parties should, when reviewing challenges to decisions to remove individuals from their territory, give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk such individuals might face if deported. 28 In particular, any evaluation of whether individuals are likely to be exposed to conditions constituting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant must be based not only on an assessment of the general conditions in the receiving country, but also on the individual circumstances of the persons in question. Those circumstances include factors that increase 23 24 25 26 27 28 See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communication No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See communications No. 2681/2015, Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 10 March 2017, para. 7.3; and No. 2512/2014, Rezaifar v. Denmark, Views adopted on 10 March 2017, para. 8.3. See Asylum Information Database, “National country report: Italy”, pp. 54-55. See, for example, communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, paras. 11.2 and 11.4; and No. 2409/2014, Ali and Mohamad v. Denmark, Views adopted on 29 March 2016, para. 7.8. 9