CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014 does not amount to a violation of article 7.c The level of hardship and destitution claimed by the authors does not rise to a level that would render their deportation cruel, inhuman or degrading. The facts in the present case, where both authors are entitled and able to work, are substantially different from the facts in Jasin v. Denmark, because the author in that case — the single mother of three small children whose residence permit expired while in Italy and who was suffering from health problems — would have been left upon deportation in a situation threatening her and her children’s existence.d In contrast, in the present case, the legal status of the authors as recipients of subsidiary protection that permits them to work and their situation as a family with two healthy adults fit for work do not warrant the sweeping conclusion of the majority of the Committee that they cannot provide for themselves. 9. Nor have the authors substantiated the claim that their deportation would expose their older son to the risk of not receiving adequate medical treatment for heart disease in Italy, since it is uncontested that their son’s treatment has been successfully completed following the surgery carried out in Denmark. 10. For these reasons, we believe that the authors have failed to demonstrate that their future prospects, if returned to Italy, disclose a real risk of harm severe enough to fall within the scope of article 7. In the absence of sufficient substantiation of their claims, Denmark cannot be reproached for having failed to adequately take into account the information provided by the authors. c d GE.16-10042 See communication No. 2402/2014, Views adopted on 29 March 2016, para. 6.6. Jasin v. Denmark, communication No. 2360/2014, Views adopted on 22 July 2015. In that case, the Committee ultimately found a violation of article 7 because the State party had failed to take the author’s particular situation of extreme precariousness into account in an individualized risk assessment. 15