CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014 disclose some shortcomings, it has not been shown to disclose a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group of people, as was the case in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece.”8 The Court found the applicant’s allegations manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible and that the applicant could be returned to Italy. With regard to the present case, the State party considers that, although the author has relied on the European Court’s finding in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011), the Court’s decision in the Mohammed Hussein case (2013) is more recent and specifically addresses the conditions in Italy. The Court noted that a person granted subsidiary protection in Italy would be provided with a three-year renewable residence permit that allowed the holder to work, obtain a travel document for aliens, family reunification and benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education.9 4.4 The 2012 Council of Europe report cited by the author was already available when the Court handed down its decision in the Mohammed Hussein case, as was the 2012 United States of America Department of State country report on Italy. Information that some aliens lived in abandoned buildings in Rome and had limited access to public services was mentioned included in the Mohammed Hussein decision. Finally, the 2013 AIDA country report on Italy, also cited by the author, stated that some asylum seekers who did not have access to asylum centres were obliged to live in “self-organized settlements”, which are often overcrowded (see p. 37). The November 2013 update of that country report indicates that those were the reception conditions in Italy for asylum seekers and not for aliens who had already been issued residence permits. The author has relied primarily on reports and other background material relating to reception conditions in Italy that were relevant to asylum seekers, including returnees under the Dublin Regulation, and not to persons, like herself, who had already been granted subsidiary protection. Moreover, although the author states that she suffers from asthma and requires medication for the condition, information available indicates that the author would have access to health care in Italy.10 4.5 Consequently, the State party concludes that it will not be breaching article 7 of the Covenant to deport the author and her children to Italy and that the author has failed to substantiate that she would be at risk of irreparable harm in Italy. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In her comments dated 3 December 2014, the author asserts that the living conditions in Italy for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international (subsidiary) protection are similar, since there is no effective integration scheme in Italy. Asylum seekers and recipients of subsidiary protection often face the same severe difficulties finding basic shelter, access to sanitary facilities and food.11 The author refers a report which states that the real problem concerns those who are sent back to Italy and who already had some kind of protection. They may have already stayed in at least one of the accommodation options available upon arrival, but, if they left the centre voluntarily before the established time, they are no longer entitled to accommodation in the Government reception centres for asylum seekers (CARAs). Most of the people occupying abandoned buildings in Rome fall into this last category. The findings show that the lack of places to 8 9 10 11 See Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy, para.78. Ibid., para 38. Ibid. The author refers to her initial communication and the reports cited therein. 7