CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014 subsequently be removed. 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 was high.17 The Committee recalls that, generally speaking, it is for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists. 8.4 The Committee notes that, according to the uncontested submissions by the author, after her initial four-month stay in a CARA in Sicily, Italy, in September 2008, she and her eldest daughter were granted subsidiary protection and a residence permit valid for three years. The day after the residence permit was issued, the author was informed that she could no longer stay in the reception centre; she was thus left without shelter nor means of subsistence. She left Italy and went to the Netherlands, but was returned to Italy in September 2009 with her minor child, and was again left to fend for herself without any social or humanitarian assistance from the Italian authorities, even though she held a valid residence permit, including during her pregnancy. Owing to her state of indigence and vulnerability, she was unable to renew her Italian residence permit in 2011. In 2011, she went to Sweden, then to Denmark where she requested asylum in June 2012. Today, the author, an asylum seeker and a single mother of three minor children, who suffers from asthma, finds herself in a situation of great vulnerability. 8.5 The Committee notes the various reports submitted by the author. It also notes that recent reports highlight 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 her, who had already been granted a form of protection and benefited from the reception facilities when they were in Italy, are not entitled to accommodation in the CARAs.18 8.6 The Committee further observes that the majority of the members of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board had found on 6 February 2014 that the background information regarding the conditions for asylum seekers who had obtained temporary residence permits in Italy to some extent supported concerns that the humanitarian conditions for this group were approaching a level where it would no longer be secure to refer to Italy as the first country of asylum (see para. 2.16 above). 8.7 The Committee notes the finding of the Refugee Appeals Board that Italy should be considered the “country of first asylum” in the present case and the position of the State party that the country of first asylum is obliged to provide asylum seekers with certain social and economic elements in accordance with basic human standards, although it is not required that such persons have exactly the same social and living standards as nationals of the country (see paras. 4.1 and 4.2 above). It notes that the State party also referred to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights which stated that, although the situation in Italy had shortcomings, it had not disclosed a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers (see para. 4.3 above).19 8.8 However, the Committee considers that the State party’s conclusion did not adequately take into account the detailed information provided by the author, who 17 18 19 10 See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; 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 AIDA, Country report: Italy, January 2015, p. 54-55, available at www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/report-download/aida_italy_thirdupdate_final_0.pdf . See Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy.