CAT/C/65/D/758/2016 rights of asylum seekers are violated on account of the deplorable living conditions in some reception centres.36 7.5 According to reports by Doctors without Borders, 37 many accommodation centres for asylum seekers lack psychological support services. Moreover, the social exclusion of asylum seekers and the lack of interpretation and translation services seriously limit potential access to health-care services. In any event, the medical services provided through the Italian public health system are not specially conceived to treat the conditions typically affecting asylum seekers and refugees, which are completely different from those affecting the Italian population.38 7.6 The deficiencies of the Italian reception system are particularly problematic for vulnerable asylum seekers and refugees. On 9 February 2017, the Danish Refugee Council and OSAR published a joint report on the situation of vulnerable persons transferred to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation. 39 Through six case studies, the report clearly demonstrates that persons transferred to Italy are at risk of rights violations and that the manner in which families and vulnerable persons are received by the Italian authorities is very arbitrary.40 7.7 As to the cases of D. v. United Kingdom and N. v. United Kingdom cited by the State party, the complainant notes that the European Court of Human Rights has clarified its jurisprudence on the removal of foreign nationals who are seriously ill. 41 He reiterates that no guarantee of medical care was either sought or obtained from the Italian authorities, in violation of European law. He also refers to a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in which it considers that a Member State “must also be able to ensure that the asylum seeker concerned receives care upon his arrival in the Member State responsible”.42 7.8 In conclusion, the State party has not sufficiently assessed the complainant’s individual case. He has clearly demonstrated his situation to be “very exceptional” within the meaning of international jurisprudence on account of being a victim of torture in need of special medical care, which he would not be able to access in Italy, and that disrupting the therapeutic relationship that he has established with his doctors in Switzerland would have irreparable consequences owing to the critical state of his health. Given the absence of any guarantee that he will receive medical care and the serious shortcomings affecting access to medical care for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection in Italy, he will not be provided with effective rehabilitation. Consequently, his deportation to Italy would constitute a violation of articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the complaint is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 10 https://rm.coe.int/native/16806f9d70. Doctors without Borders, Neglected Trauma. Asylum Seekers in Italy: an Analysis of Mental Health Distress and Access to Healthcare, July 2016, and Out of sight. Asylum seekers and refugees in Italy: Informal settlements and social marginalization, March 2016. Le strade dell’integrazione. Ricerca sperimentale quali-quantitativa sul livello di integrazione dei titolari di protezione internazionale presenti in Italia da almeno tre anni, June 2012, Italian Refugee Council, available at http://briguglio.asgi.it/immigrazione-e-asilo/2012/giugno/rapp-cir-integrifug.pdf. Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person. Danish Refugee Council and OSAR, Is Mutual Trust Enough? The Situation of Persons with Special Reception Needs upon Return to Italy, 9 February 2017. Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], No. 41738/10, 13 December 2016. C.K., H.F. and A.S. v. Slovenia, C 578/16 PPU, 16 February 2017, para. 82. GE.19-01969