CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014 or protection status may apply for renewal of his or her residence permit on his or her return to Italy, even if the residence permit has expired. The Italian authorities also informed the Danish authorities that, on his or her return to Italy, such alien must contact the police station that issued the residence permit, which will subsequently forward the request to the proper authority and will ask for verification of whether the conditions for renewal are met. The Italian authorities stated that an alien whose residence permit has expired may lawfully enter Italy for the purpose of having his or her residence permit renewed. Against this background, the State party finds that it can be considered a fact that the author and her children, whose residence permits for protection status in Italy have expired, are entitled to enter Italy and apply for renewal of their residence permits for Italy. 7.2 As regards the author’s reference to the case of Jasin and others v. Denmark, the State party observes that the background material available to the Refugee Appeals Board is collected from a wide range of sources, and is compared with the asylum seeker’s statement, including his or her past experiences. The author had the opportunity to make both written and oral statements during the asylum proceedings before the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board, and was represented by counsel. The Refugee Appeals Board made a thorough assessment of her asylum case. Accordingly, the State party maintains that the author failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of their communication under article 7 of the Covenant and that the communication is therefore manifestly unfounded and should be considered inadmissible. In the alternative, the State party maintains that article 7 of the Covenant will not be violated if the author and children are returned to Italy. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her claims for the purposes of admissibility, and notes that the State party did not challenge the credibility of the claims, nor did it contest the assertion that the author could face real difficulties upon her return to Italy. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that deporting her and her two children, including her minor son, D.M., to Italy, based on the Dublin II Regulation principle of “first country of asylum”, would expose them to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author bases her arguments on, inter alia, the actual treatment that she had received after she was granted subsidiary protection in Italy, the particular vulnerability of her family unit, and the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees entering Italy, as found in various reports. The Committee also notes the 8