CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014 the Italian authorities will prepare for their return in accordance with basic human rights standards. 5.3 The authors consider that, contrary to the State party’s interpretation, the case law more relevant for the present case is Tarakhel v. Switzerland, taking into account that, as stated above, the living conditions and difficulties in finding shelter, health assistance and food are similar for asylum seekers and persons who have already been granted protection. The authors note that in that case the European Court of Human Rights stated that the presumption that a State participating in the Dublin system will respect the fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be rebutted. 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”.19 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 on Human Rights by transferring them to Italy. The authors argue that, in the light of this finding, the harsh conditions faced by recipients of subsidiary protection returning to Italy would fall within the scope of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 7 of the Covenant. Accordingly, they reiterate that their deportation to Italy would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 20 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. 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. 6.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the authors’ claims under article 7 of the Covenant are manifestly ill-founded. The Committee considers, however, that the inadmissibility argument adduced by the State party is intimately linked to the merits and should thus be considered at that stage. 6.5 The Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant and proceeds to a consideration of the merits. 19 20 GE.16-10042 See Tarakhel v. Switzerland, para. 115. The authors quote the European Court of Human Rights, which in Tarakhel v. Switzerland indicated that if proper reception facilities adapted to children are not available, “the conditions in question would attain the threshold of severity required to come within the scope of the prohibition under article 3 of the Convention”. See Tarakhel v. Switzerland, para. 119. 7