CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014 that the first country of asylum is obliged to provide asylum seekers with basic human rights, although it is not required to provide for such persons the same social and living standards as nationals of the country (see para. 4.2 above). The Committee further notes the reference made by the State party to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights according to which, although the situation in Italy had shortcomings, it did not disclose “a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers”.26 7.7 The Committee considers, however, that the State party’s conclusion did not adequately take into account the information provided by the authors, based on their own personal experience that, despite being granted a residence permit in Italy, they faced intolerable living conditions there. In that connection, the Committee notes that the State party does not explain how, in case of a return to Italy, the residence permits would actually protect them and their two minor children, one of whom needs follow-up medical attention, from exceptional hardship and destitution, which they have already experienced in Italy. 27 7.8 The Committee recalls that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk that a person might face if deported28 and considers that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the authors would face in Italy, rather than rely on general reports and on the assumption that, as they had benefited from subsidiary protection in the past, they would, in principle, be entitled to the same subsidiary protection today. The Committee considers that the State party failed to take into due consideration the special vulnerability of the authors who, notwithstanding their entitlement to subsidiary protection, face homelessness and are not able to provide for themselves in the absence of any assistance from the Italian authorities, including the medical assistance needed for their newborn son. It has also failed to seek proper assurances from the Italian authorities that the authors and their two minor children would be received in conditions compatible with their status as asylum seekers entitled to temporary protection and the guarantees under article 7 of the Covenant, by requesting that Italy undertake: (a) to reissue or renew their residence permits 29 and to issue residence permits to their children and not to deport them from Italy; and (b) to receive the authors and their children in conditions adapted to the children’s age and the family’s vulnerable status, which would enable them to remain in Italy. 30 7.9 Consequently, the Committee considers that, under the circumstances, the removal of the authors and their two minor children to Italy on the basis of the decision of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board would be in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the deportation of the authors and their two children to Italy would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, which establishes that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including full reconsideration of their claim, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant, the Committee’s present Views and the need for assurances from Italy, as set out in paragraph 26 27 28 29 30 GE.16-10042 See Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy, para. 78. See communication No. 2360/2014, Warda Osman Jasin v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, para. 8.8. See, for example, communication No. 1763/2008, Pillai v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, paras. 11.2 and 11.4. Taking into account the authors’ claim that they lost their residence permits (see para. 2.3). See communication No. 2360/2014, Warda Osman Jasin v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, para. 8.9. 9