Annex II Individual opinion of Committee member Photini Pazartzis (dissenting) 1. I find myself in disagreement with the Committee’s view that the facts in this case amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, were the authors and their two children to be deported to Italy. 2. In its conclusions, the Committee recalls (see para. 7.3 of the Views) the obligation of States parties not to remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. a The Committee further recalls its established jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such real risk exists, unless it finds that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary and amounted to a denial of justice. This does not appear to be the case. In its decision of 7 October 2013, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board confirmed the need for subsidiary protection (which had already been granted to the authors by Italy) and took into account all the information provided by the authors in concluding that there were no substantial grounds that the authors would suffer irreparable harm if returned to Italy. 3. Notwithstanding the dire situation of vulnerability in which asylum seekers may find themselves, the assessment of a risk of personal and irreparable harm depends on the particular factual circumstances of each case. In the present case, the authors and their two children had already been granted subsidiary protection and working permits by the Italian authorities. In Denmark, the son underwent heart surgery for a congenital heart defect and the child’s treatment has been successfully completed. The present case is thus different from Jasin v. Denmark, where the Committee arrived at a different conclusion owing to the exceptional situation of the author, a single mother who was facing health problems and had three children.b 4. The prospect that the authors might face difficulties in finding housing or work if returned to Italy does not, in my opinion, amount to a real risk of hardship, or of hardship severe enough to constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and to fall within the scope of article 7 of the Covenant. a b 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. 2360/2014, Jasin v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, appendix II. 13