CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014 insalubrious or violent conditions, cannot be dismissed as unfounded”. 16 The court also emphasized that children, especially, have “specific needs” and “extreme vulnerability” and that reception facilities for children “must be adapted to their age, to ensure that those conditions do not ‘create … for them a situation of stress and anxiety’, with particular traumatic consequences”. 17 The court required Switzerland to obtain assurances from its Italian counterparts that the applicants (a family) would be received in facilities and conditions appropriate to the age of the children; if such assurances were not made, Switzerland would be violating article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights by transferring them to Italy. 18 The author argues that in light of this finding, the harsh conditions faced by recipients of subsidiary protection returning to Italy would fall within the scope of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which corresponds to article 7 of the Covenant.19 5.5 The author submits that the Tarakhel decision seems to indicate that the premise laid out in the Samsam decision can no longer be regarded as sufficient, and that individual guarantees, especially to protect returning children from harsh living conditions, are required according to the European Convention on Human Rights. In this connection, the author notes that the issue in the Tarakhel case was not the risk of refoulement, but the living conditions in the overcrowded reception facilities for asylum seekers. Thus, the Tarakhel decision indicates that the fact that a person is protected from refoulement in Italy does not exclude violations of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to harsh living conditions, especially for families with children. Accordingly, the fact that the author in the present case was recognized as a refugee does not exclude the risk of her and her children being faced with harsh living conditions, homelessness and destitution with no realistic prospect of improvement, constituting a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. 5.6 The author recalls that she belongs to a particularly vulnerable population group and is in need of special protection: she is a single mother, she suffers from bipolar disorder and depression and is dependent on medical and psychiatric treatment, and her youngest son suffers from a heart disease that requires medical attention. Regardless of the formal Italian legislative scheme applicable to the renewal of residence permits and the formal access to integration schemes, relevant background information strongly indicates that the actual living conditions in Italy for beneficiaries of international protection do not meet basic humanitarian standards as required in UNHCR Executive Committee conclusion No. 58. In these circumstances, there is a substantial risk that the author and her children will be exposed to degrading treatment if deported to Italy. Additional submissions by the parties 6.1 On 16 November 2015, the author referred to the Committee’s Views in the case of Jasin and others v. Denmark,20 stressing that, similarly to the present case, the Refugee Appeals Board did not give sufficient weight to the personal risk faced by the author if removed to Italy. The author reiterates that it is not sufficient for the State party to rely on general background information indicating that, in theory, returnees have the right to work, housing and social assistance. According to the author, an individual assessment must be undertaken by the State party, which would assess all available evidence, including the fact that she failed to receive any assistance in the past in Italy. 6.2 The author also submits that her inability to exercise her most basic economic and social rights in Italy may leave her with no choice but to return to the Islamic Republic of Iran, effectively rendering her right to non-refoulement illusory under international refugee law. 7.1 In reply to the author’s comments, on 23 February 2016, the State party noted that in its consultation response to the Danish authorities in the summer of 2015, the Italian authorities had informed the State party that an alien granted residence in Italy with refugee 16 17 18 19 20 See Tarakhel v. Switzerland, para. 115. Ibid., para. 119. Ibid., paras. 120 and 122. Ibid., para. 119. See communication No. 2360/2014, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, paras. 8.8-10. 7