CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court held that “while the general situation and living conditions in Italy of asylum seekers, accepted refugees and aliens who [had] been granted a residence permit for international protection or humanitarian purposes may disclose some shortcomings, it [had] not been shown to disclose a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group of people.”9 The Court noted that a person granted subsidiary protection in Italy would be provided with a three-year renewable residence permit that allowed the holder to work, to obtain a travel document for aliens, to reunite with family and to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. In addition, an alien was allowed, after the expiry of a residence permit, to apply for the renewal of the permit upon re-entry. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 23 December 2014, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations and reiterated their allegations of violations of articles 7, 17 and 24 of the Covenant. 5.2 The authors claim that the Committee has the competence ratione loci to examine their allegations under articles 17 and 24 of the Covenant. If there is a real, personal and foreseeable risk of violation of the right to family, to private life or to measures of protection for a child, States parties have a positive obligation to protect individuals from being exposed to such risk. In their case, the lack of accommodation in Italy had an impact on their family and their children’s rights, because it prevented them from living together in the same place and forced them to live on the street. Should the Committee consider that those articles were not directly applicable, they should be read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, given that allegations under those three provisions are closely interlinked. 5.3 The authors claim that they should be considered asylum seekers and not recognized refugees. At the time of submission of their comments to the Committee, A.S.M.’s residence permit had already expired and R.A.H’s residence permit would expire in July 2015. Both authors were no longer in possession of their Italian residence permits. In that regard, in its decision in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy, the European Court of Human Rights indicated that it was possible to renew a residence permit issued to an accepted refugee or granted for subsidiary protection or compelling humanitarian reasons by filing a request with the competent police immigration department. However, as such a request must in principle be accompanied by the original permit paper, this could be a serious problem for Dublin Regulation returnees, who usually no longer had this permit in their possession when they were transferred to Italy. 10 5.4 They claim that asylum seekers and recognized refugees should be considered members of a particular underprivileged and vulnerable group in need of special protection. The authors refer to the report of the Jesuit Refugee Service, in which the Service noted that the real problem concerned those who were sent back to Italy and who had already been granted some kind of protection; they might have already stayed in at least one of the accommodation options available upon initial arrival, but, if they had left the centre voluntarily before the established time, they were no longer entitled to accommodation in the government reception centres for asylum seekers. 11 Most people occupying abandoned buildings in Rome fall into that last category. The findings show that the lack of places to stay is a big problem, especially for returnees who are, in most cases, holders of international or humanitarian protection. 5.5 The authors contend that they are fully dependent on State support due to their lack of language skills, a network, accommodation and work. There is no effective integration scheme in Italy, and persons who are granted international protection are left on their own. There is no basis for assuming that the Italian authorities would prepare for their return in accordance with basic human rights standards. 9 10 11 GE.17-20685 See Samsam Mohammad Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy, para. 78. Ibid., para. 48. Jesuit Refugee Service, Protection Interrupted: the Dublin Regulation’s Impact on Asylum Seekers’ Protection, June 2013, pp. 148-149 and 152. 7