CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014 4.5 In addition, the State party refers to another decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland,13 in which the Court found that the return of an Afghan family from Switzerland to Italy would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), if the Swiss authorities were to send the asylum seekers back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken in charge in a manner adapted to the age of their children and that the family would be kept together. The State party considers that Tarakhel v. Switzerland does not deviate from the Court’s jurisprudence regarding individuals and families with residence permits for Italy, 14 as it concerns a case of asylum seekers. It submits that States parties cannot be expected to obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities before returning individuals or families in need of protection who have already been granted residence in Italy. 4.6 The State party concludes that the authors have failed to substantiate the claim that they would be at risk of irreparable harm in Italy and that deporting them and their children back to Italy would not amount to a violation of article 7. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 28 January 2015, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. They assert that the living conditions in Italy for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international (subsidiary) protection are similar, since there is no effective integration scheme in place. Asylum seekers and recipients of subsidiary protection thus often face the same severe difficulties in Italy in terms of finding basic shelter, access to sanitary facilities and food.15 The authors refer to the 2013 Jesuit Refugee Service report, in which it is stated that the real problem concerns those who are sent back to Italy and who were already granted some kind of protection, as they may no longer be entitled to accommodation in the government reception centres for asylum seekers if they have already stayed in at least one of the accommodation options available upon initial arrival and if they left the centre voluntarily before the established time. 16 Most people occupying abandoned buildings in Rome fall in that category. The findings show that the lack of places to stay is a big problem, especially for returnees, most of whom have been granted international or humanitarian protection.17 5.2 The authors also dispute the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence referred to by the State party. They contend that the decision in the case Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy was based on an assumption that the Italian authorities would prepare a suitable solution for the arrival of the applicant’s family in Italy.18 The authors contend that there is no basis for assuming that 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland, application No. 29217/12, judgment adopted on 10 September 2014. As established in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy. The authors reference their complaint and the various sources cited therein. Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, Protection Interrupted: The Dublin Regulation’s Impact on Asylum Seekers’ Protection (June 2013), p. 152. Ibid., p. 161. In addition, the authors quote another report indicating that persons with protection status have no access to the accommodation provided through the European Fund for Refugees either, because the fund is only for asylum seekers. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for people who have been granted protection status who are returned to Italy to find accommodation. 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). The author cites the decision in the case Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy (paras. 77-78). GE.16-10042