CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014 2013. The State party notes that the Board found that the case of the authors fell under section 7 (2) of the Danish Aliens Act (protection status). However, the authors had previously been granted subsidiary protection in Italy and could return and stay there lawfully with their children. Italy is considered the “first country of asylum”, which justifies the refusal by the Danish authorities to grant them asylum in accordance with section 7 (3) of the Aliens Act. 4.2 The State party further clarifies that, when applying the principle of country of first asylum, the Refugee Appeals Board requires, at a minimum, that the asylum seekers be protected against refoulement and that they be able to legally enter and take up lawful residence in the first country of asylum. According to the State party, such protection includes certain social and economic elements, as asylum seekers must be treated in accordance with basic human standards and their personal integrity must be protected. The core element of such protection is that the persons concerned must enjoy personal safety, both upon entering and while staying in the country of first asylum. The State party also considers, however, that it is not possible to require that asylum seekers have the exact same social and living standards as nationals of the country. 4.3 In response to the allegations regarding the humanitarian situation in Italy, the State party refers to the 2013 decision of inadmissibility of the European Court of Human Rights in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy. In that case, taking into account reports of governmental and non-governmental organizations, the Court considered that, “while the general situation and living conditions in Italy of asylum seekers, accepted refugees and aliens who have been granted a residence permit for international protection or humanitarian purposes may disclose some shortcomings, it has not been shown to disclose a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group of people, as was the case in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece”.11 The Court found the applicant’s allegations in that case manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible and that the applicant could be returned to Italy. With regard to the present case, the State party considers that, although the authors have relied on the Court’s finding in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011), the Court’s decision in the Mohammed Hussein case (2013) is more recent and specifically addresses the conditions in Italy. The State party further submits that, as the Court noted, a person granted subsidiary protection in Italy would be provided with a three-year renewable residence permit that allowed the holder to work, obtain a travel document for aliens and benefit from family reunification, as well as from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. 4.4 The State party further refers to the 2013 country report on Italy quoted by the authors, according to which some asylum seekers who did not have access to asylum centres were obliged to live in “self-organized settlements”, which are often overcrowded. The State party submits that, in the November 2013 update of that country report, it is indicated that those were the reception conditions in Italy for asylum seekers and not for aliens who, like the authors, had already been issued residence permits. Concerning the authors’ son’s heart condition and their claims that he would need medical assistance and follow-up not available in Italy, the State party submits that the child’s treatment has been successfully completed following surgery carried out in Denmark. 12 It further considers that, according to available background information, the authors’ son would have access to medical treatment in Italy. 11 12 GE.16-10042 See Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy, para. 78. The State party refers to a medical report according to which follow-up examination would be needed in around five years, but since the patient and his family are refugees who are going to be expelled from Denmark, this will most likely not happen. 5