CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014 able to find housing, work or any form of durable humanitarian solution in Italy. In addition, they submit that if they are returned to Italy, they may face homelessness or be obliged to live in self-organized settlements, which are overcrowded and have very bad living conditions, because, as they were granted protection and benefited from the reception system when they first arrived in Italy, they are no longer entitled to accommodation in reception centres.8 3.2 The authors further submit that reception and living conditions in Italy for refugees with valid or expired residence permits do not comply with basic humanitarian standards and with international obligations of protection. 9 They contend that their experience demonstrates systemic failures of the support provided to asylum seekers and refugees in Italy, especially to members of vulnerable groups. They argue that it is likely that they would face homelessness, destitution and very limited access to medical care in Italy. 10 The authors therefore consider that Italy does not currently meet the humanitarian standards necessary for the principle of first country of asylum to be applied and that they would be at a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment if they were returned to Italy. The authors draw attention to the fact that they have two small children. They also consider that their older son, Ali, would be at risk of not receiving adequate medical treatment and follow-up to his heart disease in Italy, where he did not receive proper medical assistance when he was born and where his congenital heart disease was not discovered. The authors further note that, after they were told to leave the Italian reception facilities early in 2012, they were not able to find shelter, medical care, work or any durable humanitarian solution for them and their children, despite having been granted subsidiary protection. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 2 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. The State party considers that the communication should be declared inadmissible because it is manifestly ill-founded. Should the Committee find the communication to be admissible, the State party considers that the Committee should declare the authors’ return to Italy not to be in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. More specifically, the State party argues that the authors did not produce any essential new information about their case before the Committee beyond that already submitted in connection with their asylum proceedings. It considers that the information provided was already thoroughly reviewed by the Refugee Appeals Board in its decision of 7 October 8 9 10 4 The authors cite several reports on the situation of returnees in Italy: European network for technical cooperation of the application of the Dublin II Regulation, Dublin II Regulation National Report: Italy (December 2012); Swiss Refugee Council, Reception Conditions in Italy: Report on the Current Situation of Asylum Seekers and Beneficiaries of Protection, in particular Dublin Returnees (Bern, October 2013); Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, Protection Interrupted: the Dublin Regulation’s Impact on Asylum Seekers’ Protection (June 2013); and United States Department of State country reports on human rights practices (April 2013). Asylum Information Database, Country Report: Italy (May 2013); Swiss Refugee Council, Reception Conditions in Italy: Report on the Current Situation of Asylum Seekers and Beneficiaries of Protection, in particular Dublin Returnees (Bern, October 2013); and European network for technical cooperation of the application of the Dublin II Regulation, Dublin II Regulation National Report: Italy (December 2012). The authors quote a report according to which refugees spend most of their time covering their basic needs: queuing up for meals and finding somewhere to shower, wash and sleep. Under these circumstances, it is almost impossible for them to become integrated into society, and this is even more difficult for parents who have to take care of children. See Swiss Refugee Council, Reception Conditions in Italy: Report on the Current Situation of Asylum Seekers and Beneficiaries of Protection, in particular Dublin Returnees (Bern, October 2013). GE.16-10042