CAT/C/65/D/758/2016 6.2 The primary aim of article 14 of the Convention is to restore the dignity of the victim. States parties have a margin of appreciation in how they achieve this. Neither article 14 nor the Committee’s general comment No. 3 exclude the possibility of cooperation between States parties to ensure rehabilitation. All that is required is for the victim to be able to commence a rehabilitation programme as soon as possible after having been evaluated by specialized medical professionals. Victims do not have a right to obtain a specific measure from a service provider of their choice in the State of their choice. 6.3 The complainant has already argued before the domestic authorities that, in Italy, he had not received assistance of any kind from the authorities, that he had been forced to live on the streets without care and that, furthermore, the authorities allegedly confiscated the documents that allowed him to remain in Italy. However, no evidence has been provided to support these claims. They comprise mere assertions and are contradicted by the fact that Italy expressly consented to his readmission on three separate occasions: 22 April 2013, 12 May 2014 and 19 May 2016. Moreover, the reports and other documents cited by the complainant on the situation of refugees in Italy describe general events and do not refer to him explicitly. 6.4 The State party is aware of the problems that Italy is facing in guaranteeing asylum seekers access to accommodation. However, this situation does not amount to a systemic violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 30 even when it involves vulnerable persons facing deportation. 31 The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights thus confirms the decisions taken by the Swiss authorities in this case, according to which the standard of housing alone did not constitute sufficient grounds for his transfer to Italy to be declared inadmissible. The European Court of Human Rights has often recalled that article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be interpreted as obliging Contracting Parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home or financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living.32 6.5 Italy has significantly increased its reception capacity in recent years. A large number of charities provide material assistance or advice in navigating the administrative procedures put in place by the authorities. Lastly, the complainant was granted refugee status on 1 May 2009 and a five-year residence permit. He may renew the permit in question by virtue of this status. 6.6 Even if his deportation to Italy were to lead to a change in his current standard of living, the complainant has not demonstrated in an objective and concrete manner that he would face a situation of serious precariousness and material deprivation, be permanently deprived of adequate assistance from State or private institutions, be exposed to the risk that his minimum subsistence needs would not be met on a permanent basis or that his living conditions in Italy would become onerous and severe to the point that they would constitute treatment that is contrary to articles 3, 14 and/or 16 of the Convention. 6.7 If the complainant was forced to lead a life contrary to human dignity or if he considered that the country was failing to meet its obligations to assist him, it would be up to him to assert his rights directly before the Italian authorities through the appropriate legal channels and/or, where appropriate, before the Committee by submitting an individual complaint under article 22 of the Convention. 6.8 All persons present in Italy, regardless of their status, have access to basic and emergency medical care. The system for the reception and care of beneficiaries of protection guarantees services comparable to those available to Italian nationals. It should, however, be recognized that the Italian system provides less extensive services than other European States, but the Convention does not oblige Switzerland to remedy the disparities that may exist between its national health system and that of Italy. 30 31 32 8 European Court of Human Rights, Mohammed Hussein et al. v. the Netherlands and Italy (dec.), para. 78. European Court of Human Rights, Abubeker v. Austria and Italy (dec.), No. 73874/11, 18 June 2013, paras. 71 and 72. A.S. v. Switzerland, para. 27. GE.19-01969