Annex I Individual opinion of Committee members Yuval Shany, Konstantine Vardzelashvili and Sir Nigel Rodley (dissenting) 1. We disagree with the Committee’s conclusion that the facts in the present case suggest a violation of article 7 of the Covenant by Denmark, should the authors and their two children be deported to Italy. 2. According to the well-established case law of the Committee, States parties are obliged not to deport persons from their territory “where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real 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 subsequently be removed”.a Not every exposure to personal hardship in the country of removal would, however, fall within the scope of the removing State’s non-refoulement obligations.b 3. Individuals who are likely to face, after being deported, economic destitution and inadequate living conditions, may have legitimate claims from the country of removal under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and possibly also under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Still, with the possible exceptions of those individuals who face special hardships owing to their particular vulnerabilities, which render their plight exceptionally harsh and irreparable in nature, nonavailability of social assistance does not constitute grounds for non-refoulement. A contrary interpretation, recognizing all economically destitute individuals as potential victims of article 7 of the Covenant, has no support in the case law of the Committee or in State practice, and would extend the protections of article 7 and the non-refoulement principle (which are absolute in nature) beyond breaking point. 4. Although we supported the Views adopted by the Committee in Jasin v. Denmark,c the facts in that case were significantly different from those in the present case, and do not warrant the same legal conclusion. In Jasin v. Denmark, the author was in a particularly vulnerable situation, which made it nearly impossible for her to confront the exceptional hardships expected were she to be deported to Italy. She was the single mother of three small children who had to contend with health problems, who had lost her immigration status in Italy and whom the Italian welfare system had demonstrably failed to assist. Under those exceptional circumstances, we were of the view that, without specific assurances of social assistance, Italy could not be considered a safe country of removal for the author and her children (raising, as a result, the possibility of de facto refoulement from Italy to her country of origin). 5. In the present case, the two authors are able-bodied adults who may, pursuant to their subsidiary protection status in Italy, lawfully work and support themselves and their two minor children. The facts of the case also suggest that the Italian authorities have responded in the past, at least in part, to the social needs of the authors, who resided in an asylum centre for several months. Although one of the authors’ children suffered in the past from a congenital heart problem (atrial septal defect), the record before us suggests that the operation he underwent in Denmark was successful, that the medical problem has been a b c GE.16-10042 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. See communication No. 265/87, Vuolanne v. Finland, Views adopted on 7 April 1989. See communication No. 2360/2014, Jasin v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015. 11