CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014 Appendix I Individual opinion of Committee member Dheerujlall Seetulsingh (dissenting) 1. However much one may sympathize with the condition of the author and her three children, I do not agree with the view that there will be a likely violation by the State Party of article 7 of the Covenant, in this case, if they were to be deported to Italy (the country of first asylum). Such a finding would unduly widen the ambit of article 7 and make it applicable to the situation of thousands of poor and destitute people in the world, especially those who now want to move from the South to the North. There is no precedent in the jurisprudence of the Committee to support the extension of the application of article 7. 2. The author arrived in Italy alone from Somalia when she was pregnant in 2008. She obtained a residence permit valid until November 2011. And yet soon after 2008, she decided to move with her daughter to the Netherlands where she again got pregnant. They were returned to Italy, where she gave birth to a second child. In October 2011, she left Italy for Sweden, which denied her asylum, so she went on to Denmark. She failed to renew her residence permit in Italy, which expired in November 2011, allegedly due to lack of means. However, she found the means to travel across Europe. In November 2013, the Danish Immigration Service ruled that the author should be returned to Italy. Although she was in that predicament with two small children, the author gave birth to a third child in Denmark in December 2014. She seems to have totally ignored the existence and value of birth control, thereby exhibiting a certain degree of irresponsibility in her conduct and exacerbating her precarious situation and that of her small children. 3. The Committee recalls (see para. 8.3 of the Views) it is for the authorities of the State party to assess the risk that the author would face if deported to the country of first asylum. The decision taken was subject to appeal before the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, which was presided over by a judge. The sovereign appreciation of facts must be left to the State party, unless there is a manifest error of judgment or an error of law or a misapplication of the law or of the provisions of the Covenant to the facts. Such is not the case here. Since all the facts were taken into account by the authorities of State party’s before it took a decision, it is difficult to endorse the sweeping conclusions of the majority of the members of the Committee (see para. 8.9 of the Views) that the State party “failed to devote sufficient analysis to the author��s personal experience”. The Appeals Board did take into account that conditions would be difficult for the author in Italy, but effectively concluded that there were no substantial grounds to lead to the conclusion that she would suffer “irreparable harm” if deported. That issue was therefore adequately addressed. 4. The fact that living conditions are better in Denmark than in Italy is not sufficient ground to conclude that the author would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment if deported to the country of first asylum. Nor is there any reason to believe that she would be compelled to return to her country of origin (Somalia) because of harsh living conditions in Italy or that Italy would deport her to her country of origin, where allegedly she is likely to face torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The latter course of action was not contemplated by the Italian authorities during the time that she spent there between 2008 and 2011. Thus, the situation envisaged and the concern expressed in the concurring individual opinion of Messrs. Shany and Vardzelashvili do not find relevance here. 5. Finally, to presume a violation of article 7 is tantamount to introducing the concept of economic refugees within the Covenant, thus creating a dangerous precedent, whereby asylum seekers and refugees would be justified in moving from one country to another, 12