CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015 Although according to Italian legislation asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to the registration with the National Health Service and to medical assistance in the same way as Italian citizens, the access to this right is seriously limited by the conditions of social marginalization that this population experiences in our country, in particular inside informal settlements … The renewal of the permit to stay, especially for humanitarian reasons, is made difficult by the police stations, which request municipal residence registration or domicile, even though no legal norm dictates it. According to police, domicile must be demonstrated through a renting contract, or at least a letter of hospitality by the owner or the tenant of the property. Lacking one and the other, and if the police refuses a letter of fictitious domicile by supporting organizations, migrants can only resort to “buy” a fake renting contract or another domicile document, or renew their permit in less restrictive police stations, sometimes in provinces or regions other than the actual living area: in this way access to general practitioners and paediatrician in the areas where refugees actually live is prevented as registration to National Health Service depends on the domicile listed in the permit to stay.18 5.3 The authors also refer to the Committee’s Views on Warda Osman Jasin et al. v. Denmark, in which the Committee emphasized the need to give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk a person might face if removed. The authors indicate that the State party has failed to obtain specific assurances from Italy vis-à-vis the following: (a) acceptance of the authors’ return; (b) renewal of the authors’ residence permits; (c) guarantee against deportation of the authors to Somalia; and (d) conditions adapted to the authors’ family and children. The authors submit that this requires an individualized assessment of the risk faced by the person, rather than reliance on general reports and on the assumption that, having been granted subsidiary protection in the past, he or she would in principle be entitled to work and receive social benefits. They further claim that the Refugees Appeals Board failed to make a sufficiently individualized assessment of the risk that the authors will face in Italy. Moreover, the application of an unreasonably high threshold for substantial grounds for establishing that a real risk of irreparable harm exists renders the Board’s decision both unreasonable and arbitrary. Furthermore, the authors claim that they already experienced intolerable living conditions in Italy while they held a valid residence permit. The available background information substantiates the existence of intolerable living conditions for both refugees and asylum seekers and the lack of support from the Italian authorities, and gives substantial reasons to believe there is a real risk that the authors will again face such conditions if they are deported to Italy. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 18 See Médecins Sans Frontières, Out of Sight: Asylum seekers and refugees in Italy: Informal settlement and social marginalization, March 2016, p. 14. 9