CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014 6.2 In that respect, the State party reiterates that it appears from the decision in Mohammed Hussein case (paras. 37 and 38) that persons recognized as refugees or granted subsidiary protection in Italy are entitled to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education under Italian domestic law. 6.3 Accordingly, the State party reiterates that article 7 of the Covenant does not prevent it from enforcing the Dublin Regulation in respect of individuals or families who have been granted residence permits in Italy, like the author. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with article 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant are manifestly ill-founded. The Committee however considers that the inadmissibility argument adduced by the State party is intimately linked to the merits and should thus be considered at that stage. 7.5 The Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that deporting her and her three minor children to Italy, based on the Dublin Regulation principle of “first country of asylum”, would expose them to the risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author bases her arguments on, inter alia, the actual treatment she received after she was granted a residence permit in Italy in September 2008 and on the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees entering Italy, as found in various reports. 8.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31,16 in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may 16 See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. 9