CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015 limited access to health care. The authors further indicate that they must be regarded as extremely vulnerable as they have four children, the youngest of whom is two years old. 3.2 The authors submit that, after they were granted subsidiary protection in January 2009, they were unable to find shelter, work or any durable humanitarian solution in Italy for themselves and their children. They had great difficulties in finding medical care during pregnancy and birth. Facing homelessness, they lived in abandoned buildings with other refugees and asylum seekers, where there were no sanitary facilities and where alcohol was consumed openly. 3.3 The authors further allege that the reception conditions in Italy for refugees and asylum seekers with valid or expired residence permits do not comply with international obligations of protection.6 Furthermore, they submit that international protection seekers returning to Italy who previously had been granted a form of protection and had benefitted from the reception system when they lived there were no longer entitled to accommodation in reception facilities in Italy. 7 They state that their experience indicates systemic failures regarding basic support for asylum seekers and refugees in Italy, especially members of vulnerable groups. They indicate that asylum seekers in Italy experience severe difficulties in gaining access to health services.8 3.4 The authors submit that their circumstances are in contrast with those in the case of Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy,9 because they have already experienced being transferred from Finland to Italy, at which time they neither received — upon arrival or later — any assistance from the Italian authorities in securing the basic needs of the family, namely, shelter, food or medical assistance at birth, nor given any assistance in finding work or housing or to help them integrate into Italian society. 3.5 The authors state that the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Tarakhel v. Switzerland10 is relevant to the present case, as it refers to the living conditions and difficulties in finding shelter for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection in Italy. The authors note that, in its decision, the Court required Switzerland to obtain assurances from its Italian counterparts that the applicants — a family — would be 6 7 8 9 10 The authors refer to the Swiss Refugee Council, Reception conditions in Italy: Report on the current situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin returnees (Bern, October 2013), p. 11, available from www.refworld.org/pdfid/5315872c4.pdf; Asylum Information Database (AIDA), “Country report: Italy” (May 2013), p. 34, available from www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/italy; Council of Europe, “Report by Nils Muiznieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his visit to Italy from 3 to 6 July 2012”, 18 September 2012, p. 150, available from https://rm.coe.int/16806db861. The authors refer to the European Network for technical cooperation of the application of the Dublin II Regulation, Dublin II Regulation: National report on Italy, 19 December 2012, available from www.refworld.org/pdfid/514054492.pdf; “Country report: Italy” (see footnote 6 above), p. 37; United States of America, Department of State, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012: Italy” (April 2013), available from www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2012humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper; Reception conditions in Italy (see footnote 6 above), pp. 4-5; and Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, Protection Interrupted: The Dublin Regulation’s impact on asylum seekers’ protection, June 2013, pp. 152 and 161, available from www.jrs.net/assets/Publications/File/protection-Interrupted_JRS-Europe.pdf. The authors refer to“Report by Nils Muiznieks”, pp. 143 and 160; and “Country report: Italy”, pp. 4-5 and 45-46 (see footnote 6 above). The author refers to European Court for Human Rights, Mohammad Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy, application No. 27725/10, decision adopted on 2 April 2013. European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland, application No. 29217/12, judgment adopted on 10 September 2014. 5