CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014 findings in previous case law on individuals and families with residence permits for Italy, as expressed in, inter alia, the decision of the same Court in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy. Accordingly, the State party maintains that it cannot be inferred from the judgment in Tarakhel v. Switzerland that member States are required to obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities before deporting to Italy individuals or families in need of protection who had already been granted residence in Italy. 6.5 The authors’ allegations that, as recognized refugees, the family would be offered poorer conditions than asylum seekers in Italy do not accord with their previous statements on their stay in Italy. In that regard, the State party notes that, inter alia, in the interview with the Danish Immigration Service and at the hearings before the Refugee Appeals Board, the authors stated that A.S.M. had lived in a refugee camp for seven months; R.A.H. had been hospitalized in Italy for a long period of time because she had felt unwell during her pregnancy; they had received financial support for housing for six months and 600 euros when the financial support for housing had been discontinued; A.S.M. had received six months of voluntary education; they had been issued health insurance cards, had access to medical care and had been registered with a family physician; they had been given shelter by the Caritas organization in both Rome and Perugia; A.S.M. had contacted the employment centre with a view to finding a job and had been informed that there was a job, but it involved being taken to and from the workplace by bus and it was poorly paid; before giving birth to her son, R.A.H. had been examined at the hospital in Perugia; she had given birth in a hospital; the baby had been examined after the delivery; and R.A.H. and the children had been permitted to stay with Caritas for two months after their son’s birth. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. It observes that the authors filed an application for asylum in Denmark, which was ultimately rejected by the Refugee Appeals Board on 3 April 2014. Accordingly, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ claims with respect to article 7 should be held inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation. However, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the authors have adequately explained the reasons for which they fear that their forcible return to Italy would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee notes the authors’ allegations that, if deported to Italy with their children, they would suffer treatment in violation of articles 17 and 24 of the Covenant. In that connection, the Committee notes that the State party has argued that those claims are inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae. The Committee recalls that article 2 of the Covenant imposes an obligation upon States parties not to deport a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, in the country to which removal is to be effected.13 Accordingly, to the extent that the authors’ allegations of violations of articles 17 and 24 rely on violations that they and their children 13 See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. GE.17-20685 9