CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014 will allegedly suffer after their return to Italy, the Committee considers that the authors’ claims are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Covenant and declares them inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the communication is admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that deporting them and their three minor children to Italy, on the basis of the principle of country of first asylum as set out in the Dublin Regulation, would expose them to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The authors base their arguments on, inter alia, the socioeconomic situation they would face and the lack of access to social assistance in Italy, as demonstrated by their experience after they had been granted a residence permit in October 2009, as well as on the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees in Italy. They submit that, since they already benefited from the reception system when they first arrived in Italy, they would have no access to social housing or temporary shelters; they would not be able to find accommodation or a job; and they would therefore face homelessness again and be forced to live with their minor children on the street. 8.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, 14 such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has indicated in its jurisprudence that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high.15 The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence determining that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists, 16 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 17 8.4 The Committee observes that it is not disputed that, in October 2009, Italy granted A.S.M. and R.A.H. asylum and subsidiary protection; that they received residence permits; and that they received financial support and social assistance in the form of housing until June 2010. The authors allege that they subsequently received no help or assistance from the Italian authorities and that they lived in homelessness and destitution. Against this background, they submit that, if returned to Italy, they would have no social assistance from the authorities, since they already benefited from the reception system when they first arrived in Italy; that they would not be able to find accommodation or a job; and that they would therefore face homelessness again and be forced to live with their minor children on the street. In support of their claims, the authors rely on reports on the general situation of asylum seekers and refugees in Italy that indicate, among other things, that the six-month duration of the provision of social housing and accommodation is insufficient to enable people to provide for themselves beyond that period; that it is extremely difficult for people who have been granted protection status and are returned to Italy to find accommodation or a job; that, although beneficiaries of protection have the same status as native Italians concerning social rights, the social system is in general insufficient; and that an increasing 14 15 16 17 10 Ibid. See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communication No. 1957/2010, Z.H. v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, Z.H. v. Australia and communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. GE.17-20685