Annex III Individual opinion of Committee members Anja Seibert-Fohr joined by Yuji Iwasawa (dissenting) 1. We deplore the precarious living conditions in which many refugees entitled to subsidiary protection experience under a regulatory regime adopted by a union of States that is founded on the indivisible, universal value of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity.a We also recognize the need for action by the union in order to fulfil this commitment. 2. However, on the basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and for reasons that will be explained below, we are unable to agree with the finding of the majority of the Committee in the present case that Denmark would violate its obligation not to subject the authors to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment pursuant to article 7 if it deported them to Italy. 3. According to the Committee’s standing jurisprudence, States parties are under an obligation “not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise 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 articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant”.b In paragraph 7.3 of the present Views, the Committee reaffirms this principle, stressing in addition that this risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds is high. 4. The existence of a risk under article 7 must be determined on a case-by-case basis. It is for the authors of a communication to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure complained of were to be implemented, they would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7. 5. In the present case, we believe that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claim under article 7. 6. Before they left for Denmark, both authors had been granted subsidiary protection in Italy and had received a temporary residence permit that, according to the uncontested submission by the State party, allowed them to work and benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. There is no indication that they would not be able to renew their residence permits when they return to Italy. 7. The authors claim that they may face homelessness, destitution and very limited access to medical care or be obliged to live in self-organized settlements (para. 3.1). They base their claim under article 7 on the absence of an effective integration scheme in Italy (para. 5.1) and the fact that they were not offered assistance by the Italian authorities to find housing or work in Italy (para. 2.3). 8. This submission is insufficient to show a real risk of irreparable harm contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant. As a universally accepted standard of protection, this article provides that no one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate that they would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to such treatment in Italy. The non-availability of social assistance as such a b GE.16-10042 Preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 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. 14