CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014 stay is a big problem, especially for returnees who are, in most cases, holders of international or humanitarian protection.12 5.2 The author also disputes the State party’s interpretation of the European Court jurisprudence. She contends that the Mohammed Hussein decision was based on an assumption that upon notification, the Italian authorities would prepare a suitable solution for the arrival of the applicant’s family in Italy. 13 The author submits that she had also been transferred from the Netherlands to Italy and was not provided with any assistance by the Italian authorities in securing the basic needs of her family, such as shelter, food, medical assistance, employment, permanent housing or integration into Italian society. Thus, based on that experience, there is no basis for assuming that the Italian authorities will prepare for her return in accordance with basic human rights standards. 5.3 Furthermore, the author argues that the more recent European Court decision in Tarakhel v. Switzerland (4 November 2014), which involved similar facts, supports her claim that she should not be sent back to Italy. 14 The author notes that, in the Tarakhel case, the Court stated that the presumption that a State participating in the Dublin system will respect the fundamental rights in the European Convention on Human Rights is not irrebuttable. The Court further found that, in the current situation in Italy, “the possibility that a significant number of asylum seekers may be left without accommodation or accommodated in overcrowded facilities without any privacy or even in insalubrious or violent conditions, cannot be dismissed as unfounded.” The Court required Switzerland to obtain assurances from its Italian counterparts that the applicants (a family) would be received in facilities and conditions adapted to the age of the children; if such assurances were not made, Switzerland would be violating article 3 of the European Convention by transferring them to Italy. The author argues that, in the light of that finding, the acute homelessness facing recipients of subsidiary protection upon returning to Italy would fall within the scope of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Accordingly, the author reiterates that deporting her and her children to Italy would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 On 17 February 2015, the State party commented on the European Court of Human Rights decision in Tarakhel v. Switzerland and notes that, in reference to its case law, the Court had reiterated that article 3 could not be interpreted as obliging the High Contracting Parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home, nor did article 3 entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living. 15 In the opinion of the State party, the Tarakhel case — which concerned a family with the status of asylum seekers in Italy — does not deviate from the findings in the Court’s previous case law on individuals and families with a residence permit for Italy, as expressed in, inter alia, the Mohammed Hussein decision. Accordingly, the State party expresses the view that it cannot be inferred from the Tarakhel decision that States are required to obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities before returning individuals or families in need of protection, who had already been granted residence permits in Italy. 12 13 14 15 8 See Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, Protection Interrupted (see note 5), p. 152 . See Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy, para. 77. See European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland, application No. 29217/12, judgment adopted on 10 September 2014. Ibid., para. 95.