CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014 authors that, according to documents received from the Italian authorities, it appeared that they held residence permits in Italy; and A.S.M. had been granted asylum as a refugee. 2.12 The Refugee Appeals Board also noted that A.S.M. had stated that: in 2009, they had been provided with housing for six months in Palagiano and had received money from the Italian authorities in connection with their integration process; they had health insurance cards and access to medical care; although he did not remember the validity period of the health insurance cards, he had noted that it had been extended several times; they had been registered with the office of a family physician where they could go every month; and the physician had told them that they were fine and had therefore not referred them to specialists. He also submitted that, in Palagiano, he had worked in an olive field but had been fired because of the colour of his skin; and he had been the victim of abuse in connection with another job. Upon their return from Germany, Caritas had provided accommodation for R.A.H. and their child, whereas he had stayed in various places, including in the homes of Somali families and on the street. A.S.M. had also stated that, in Perugia, he had contacted the employment centre to get a job and that there had been a job but it was seasonal and poorly paying. R.A.H. had stated before the Board that she had been denied medical care in Rome in connection with her second pregnancy; she had been examined once in Perugia before the delivery of the child in hospital and twice at Caritas; after the delivery, her son had been examined at the hospital; they had been obliged to leave Caritas two months after her child’s birth; and the child had not subsequently been examined by doctors. 2.13 The Refugee Appeals Board considered that the authors’ complaint fell within the scope of section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act owing to their fear of persecution by Al-Shabaab2 and that, consequently, the question was whether Italy could serve as their country of first asylum, in accordance with section 7 (3) of the Aliens Act. 3 The Board found that the authors could enter Italy and stay there legally while they applied for a renewal of their residence permits. It also found that, in case of return to Italy, the authors would be protected against refoulement, that their personal integrity and safety would be protected in Italy to the extent necessary and that the financial and social conditions offered to them in Italy would be adequate. On the basis of the foregoing and on the background information available, the Board found that Italy could serve as the authors’ country of first asylum, with reference to section 7 (3) of the Aliens Act, regardless of the [authors’] statements concerning their problems during their stay in Italy. 2.14 The authors claim that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies, given that the Refugee Appeals Board decision of 3 April 2014 is final and cannot be challenged before a court. The complaint 3.1 The authors submit that, by forcibly returning them and their children to Italy, the State party would violate their rights under articles 7, 17 and 24 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors claim that the Refugee Appeals Board should grant A.S.M. refugee protection pursuant to section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, given that he is at risk of persecution in Somalia by Al-Shabaab, due to his political activities and his position as mayor of Qoryooley. They also claim that, if returned to Italy, the State party would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant, because the conditions in which they lived in Italy amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. If returned to Italy, they would have no social assistance from the authorities, given that they had already benefited from the reception system when they first arrived, and would therefore be forced to live with their 2 3 4 Section 7 (2) establishes that “upon application, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his country of origin”. Section 7 (3) establishes that “a residence permit under subsections (1) and (2) may be refused if the alien has already obtained protection in another country, or if the alien has close ties with another country where the alien must be deemed able to obtain protection”. GE.17-20685