CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014 shown to disclose “a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers”.26 9.8 However, the Committee considers that the State party’s conclusion did not adequately take into account the information provided by the author, based on her personal circumstances and past experience, that despite being granted residence in Italy, she faced intolerable living conditions there. In this connection, the Committee notes that the State party does not explain how, in case of return to Italy, the renewable residence permit would actually protect the author and her children, who include a minor child who suffers from a heart condition, from exceptional hardship and destitution, similar to that already experienced by the author in Italy. 27 9.9 The Committee recalls that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk a person might face if deported 28 and considers that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the author and her two children (both of whom were minors during the asylum proceedings) would face in Italy, rather than relying on general reports and on the assumption that, as the author had benefited from subsidiary protection in the past, she would, in principle, be entitled to the same level of subsidiary protection today. The Committee considers that the State party failed to take due consideration of the special vulnerability of the author and her children. Notwithstanding her formal entitlement to subsidiary protection in Italy, the author, who has been severely mistreated by her spouse, faced great poverty, and was not able to provide for herself and her children, including for their medical needs, in the absence of any assistance from the Italian authorities. The State party has also failed to seek effective assurances from the Italian authorities that the author and her two children, who are in a particularly vulnerable situation analogous to that encountered by the author in Jasin and others v. Denmark (which also involved the planned deportation of an unhealthy single mother with minor children, who had already experienced extreme hardship and destitution in Italy),29 would be received in conditions compatible with their status as asylum seekers entitled to temporary protection and the guarantees under article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, the State party failed to request Italy to undertake: (a) to renew the author’s residence permit, and to issue permits to her children; and (b) to receive the author and her children in conditions appropriate to the children’s age and the family’s vulnerable status, which would enable them to remain in Italy. 30 9.10 Consequently, the Committee considers that the removal of the author and her two children to Italy in these particular circumstances, and without the aforementioned assurances, would amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the deportation of the author and her two children to Italy without proper assurances would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, which establishes that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to proceed to a review of the author’s claim, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant, the Committee’s present Views, and the need to obtain proper assurances from Italy, as set out in paragraph 9.9 above. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author and her children to Italy while their request for asylum is being reconsidered. 26 27 28 29 30 10 See Samsam Mohammad Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy, para. 78. See communications No. 2360/2014, Jasin and others v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, para. 8.8, and No. 2409/2014, Abdilafir Abubakar Ali and others v. Denmark, Views adopted on 29 March 2016, para. 7.7. See, for example, communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai and others v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, paras. 11.2 and 11.4; and No. 2409/2014, Abdilafir Abubakar Ali and others v. Denmark, para. 7.8. See Jasin and others v. Denmark. See Jasin and others v. Denmark, para 8.9; Abdilafir Abubakar Ali and others v. Denmark, para. 7.8; and Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, para. 13.8.