CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014 refers to a report entitled “Asylum procedure and reception conditions in Italy”,8 which indicates that Dublin returnees will in general be reinserted in their previous asylum procedure at the stage they were at when they left. It appears that the majority of Dublin returnees had already received an Italian residence permit before they left Italy for other European countries. It is possible to renew a residence permit issued to an accepted refugee or granted for subsidiary protection or compelling humanitarian reasons by filing a request with the competent police immigration department. 4.8 The State party notes that the European Court of Human Rights also stated 9 that the assessment of whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights) must necessarily be a rigorous one and inevitably required that the court assess the conditions in the receiving country against the standard of that article. The court concluded10 that the mere fact of return to a country where one’s economic position would be worse than in the expelling State was not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed in article 3, and that article 3 could not be interpreted as obliging States parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home; that provision did not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living. The court noted that aliens who were subject to expulsion could not in principle claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a State and continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance and services provided by the expelling State. Accordingly, the court concluded that in the absence of exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds against removal, the fact that the applicant’s material and social living conditions would be significantly reduced if he or she were to be removed was not sufficient. 4.9 Concerning living conditions in Italy, taking into account reports of governmental and non-governmental organizations, the court considered that “while the general situation and living conditions in Italy of asylum seekers, accepted refugees and aliens who have been granted a residence permit for international protection or humanitarian purposes may disclose some shortcomings, it has not been shown to disclose a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group of people, as was the case in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece.”11 4.10 Regarding the author and her minor son’s health, the State party submits that it must be assumed, in view of the background information available, that the family will have access to health-care services in Italy. In addition, the author stated at the Refugee Appeals Board hearing on 14 August 2014 that she had received treatment and medication for her mental health problems in Italy, and that she had seen a psychiatrist. On 15 January 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board requested the author to submit additional medical records in support of her application. In response, on 14 June 2015, the author submitted once again the medical records appended to her initial complaint. It also appears from her counsel’s brief of 2 July 2014 to the Refugee Appeals Board that the author had stated to counsel that “she had been told that her son’s two heart valves did not close as they were supposed to, but after having been examined in Denmark, it appear[ed] that they work as they should now”. 4.11 In the opinion of the State party, the Tarakhel judgment 12 — which concerns a family with the status of asylum seekers in Italy — does not deviate from the findings in previous case law on individuals and families with a residence permit for Italy, as expressed in, inter alia, Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy. Accordingly, the State party finds that it cannot be inferred from the Tarakhel judgment that member States 8 9 10 11 12 Published by Juss-Buss, a Norwegian-Swiss NGO, in May 2011, following a visit to Italy in September 2010, with a specific focus on Dublin returnees. Samsam Mohammad Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy, para. 68. Ibid., paras. 70 and 71. Ibid., para. 78. European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland, application No. 29217/12, judgment of 10 September 2014. 5