CCPR/C/118/D/2299/2013 8.2 As to the facts of the case, the State party points out that in respect of the proceedings concerning the author’s second application for a temporary regular residence permit on 25 July 2011 the Immigration and Naturalization Service asked the Medical Advisors’ Office for a report. That Office issued reports on 25 August 2011 and 29 November 2011 indicating that HIV could be treated in Ghana. Thus, the author’s application for a residence permit was denied on the grounds that he could receive medical treatment for HIV in his country of origin. No appeal was lodged by the author against the dismissal of the Hague District Court, which is why the proceedings concerning the author’s application for a residence permit came to an end. 8.3 After the Amsterdam District Court dismissed the author’s application for a review of the Municipality’s refusal to pay benefits (see para. 2.11), on 13 December 2011 the author lodged an appeal before the Central Appeals Court for Public Service and Social Security Matters. On 25 February 2012, the author applied to the Central Appeals Court for interim relief. The appeal and the interim relief application were joined with the proceedings relating to the author’s application for access to shelter under the Social Support Act (see para. 2.12). 8.4 In June 2012, the amount of €375 per month granted to the author was increased as a result of indexation to €450 per month. In March 2013, that amount was reduced to €225 per month. In addition, the author received €225 per month from an organization called AIDS Fonds. 8.5 On 10 March 2014, the author applied to the State Secretary for Security and Justice for shelter and an allowance to cover living expenses to supplement the €450 per month he was receiving from the Municipality. On 21 March 2014, the State Secretary offered the author shelter in restrictive accommodation. On the same day, the State Secretary denied the author’s application for shelter and an allowance to cover living expenses. On 9 April 2014, the author lodged an objection to that decision. By a decision dated 28 July 2014, the State Secretary declared the objection inadmissible. On 5 August 2014, the author applied for a review of the decision to the Hague District Court, which declared the author’s application unfounded on 11 June 2015. The author did not appeal that decision. 8.6 The State party recalls the offer for shelter made by the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers and the decision of the Hague District Court of 18 July 2014 (see paras. 6.1 and 6.2). 8.7 Furthermore, in the light of the Central Appeals Court’s dismissal of the author’s request for shelter (see para. 7), on 8 July 2016 the Municipality informed the author that the subsistence payment of €450, which was being granted to him as interim relief, would be terminated as of 1 September 2016 (see also para. 2.16). 8.8 The State party provides a detailed description of relevant legislation and case law 3 concerning temporary and permanent residence permits for aliens, access to social benefits, including access to shelter or accommodation to asylum seekers and aliens residing irregularly in the State party, and the conditions of stay in reception centres. Notably, it points out that in its legal system the right to social benefits and assistance is linked to lawful residence. Under the Social Support Act aliens are eligible for individual services or benefits if they are lawfully resident in the State party. Aliens who are lawfully resident in the State party solely on the basis that they are permitted to await the decision on their residence application are not denied all forms of social provision or benefits. Although they cannot derive any rights from the regular social security system, alternative provision is 3 The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division (case No. ECLI:NL:RVS:2015:3415) and of the Central Appeals Court (case No. ECLI:NL:RVS:2015:3803), both of 26 November 2015. 7