CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014 5.6 The authors argue that the more recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 November 2014 in Tarakhel v. Switzerland, which allegedly involved similar facts, supports their claim that they should not be sent back to Italy. In that judgment, the Court noted that the presumption that a State participating in the system under the Dublin Regulation would respect the fundamental rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights was not irrebuttable. The Court found that, in the current situation in Italy, “the possibility that a significant number of asylum seekers may be left without accommodation or accommodated in overcrowded facilities without any privacy or even in insalubrious or violent conditions, cannot be dismissed as unfounded”.12 The Court required Switzerland to obtain assurances from its Italian counterparts that the applicants (a family) would be received in facilities and conditions adapted to the ages of the children; if such assurances were not made, Switzerland would be in violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights if it transferred them to Italy. The authors argue that, in the light of that finding, together with their previous experiences, it should be concluded that, if returned to Italy, they would be exposed to a situation amounting to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The State party’s assessment should have also taken into account the impact of their return on their rights under articles 17 and 24, in particular whether the family would be able to live together in Italy. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 18 May 2016, the State party reiterated its previous arguments on the admissibility and the merits of the communication and provided additional observations. It informed the Committee that, according to a response received from the Italian authorities in the third quarter of 2015 in the context of its consultations with Italy, an alien with a residence permit for Italy who was recognized as a refugee or had protection status could apply for the renewal of the residence permit upon re-entry into Italy and after the expiry of the residence permit. The Italian authorities indicated that, upon re-entry into Italy, the alien must present himself or herself at the issuing police immigration department and submit a request for renewal and, subsequently, the request would be forwarded to the competent authority for verification that the conditions for renewal had been met. In February 2016, the Italian authorities confirmed that the current law provided that an alien who had been granted residence in Italy as a recognized refugee or had been granted protection status may submit a request for renewal of his or her residence permit upon re-entry into Italy if, as in the case at hand, the residence permit had expired after the alien had entered Denmark. Accordingly, the authors will be able to enter Italy and to submit a request for renewal of their residence permits upon re-entry into Italy, even though their residence permits have expired. The State party maintains that no further obligation can be imposed on it to ensure the authors’ entry into and basis of residence in Italy. 6.2 The State party noted that, in contrast with communication No. 2360/2014, Warda Osman Jasin et al. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, which concerned the deportation of a single mother with three minor children to Italy, the case at hand concerns the deportation of a family with three minor children. The fact that, by leaving Italy, the authors have placed themselves in a situation in which their residence permits have expired does not mean that they should be considered asylum seekers today. 6.3 In addition, the case at hand differs markedly from Naima Mohammed Hassan and others v. the Netherlands and Italy (application No. 40524/10), for which the European Court of Human Rights rendered its decision on 27 August 2013. In that case, the Italian authorities had dismissed the applicant’s application for international protection, noting that the applicant had left for an unknown destination, a fact which had been confirmed by the local police headquarters. In the present case, the authors were in fact issued residence permits for Italy before leaving the country. 6.4 With regard to the authors’ reference to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Tarakhel v. Switzerland, the State party submits that that judgment, which concerned a family with the status of asylum seekers in Italy, does not deviate from the 12 8 See European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland (application No. 29217/12), judgment adopted on 4 November 2014, paras. 155 and 120-122. GE.17-20685