CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014 presented extensive information based on her own personal experience that, despite being granted a residence permit in Italy, on two occasions she was faced with indigence and extreme precarity. Furthermore, the State party does not explain how the Italian residence permit that the author was granted and which was now expired would protect her and her three minor children from hardship and destitution, which she had already experienced in Italy, if she and her children were to be returned to that country. 8.9 The Committee recalls that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk a person might face if deported20 and considers that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the author would face in Italy, rather than rely on general reports and on the assumption that, as she had benefited from subsidiary protection in the past, she would, in principle, be entitled to work and receive social benefits in Italy today. The Committee considers that the State party failed to devote sufficient analysis to the author’s personal experience and to the foreseeable consequences of forcibly returning her to Italy. It has also failed to seek proper assurance from the Italian authorities that the author and her three minor children would be received in conditions compatible with their status as asylum seekers entitled to temporary protection and the guarantees under article 7 of the Covenant, by requesting that Italy undertake (a) to renew the author’s and her children’s residence permits and not to deport them from Italy; and (b) to receive the author and her children in conditions adapted to the children’s age and the family’s vulnerable status, which would enable them to remain in Italy. 8.10 Consequently, the Committee considers that, under the circumstances, removal of the author and her three minor children to Italy on the basis of the initial decision of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board would be in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the deportation of the author and her three children to Italy would violate their rights under article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide Warda Osman Jasin, the author of the present communication, with an effective remedy, including full reconsideration of her claim, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant, the Committee’s present Views, and the need to obtain assurance from Italy, as set out in paragraph 8.9 above, if necessary. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author to Italy while her request for asylum is being reconsidered. The State party is also under an obligation to avoid exposing others to similar risks that would constitute a violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 11. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a State party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the present Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them translated into the official language of the State party and widely distributed. 20 See for example, communication No. 1763/2008, Pillai v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, paras.11.2 and 11.4. 11