CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 In that case, the author notes that the Committee had found that removing to Italy the individual, who was also a single woman with minor children who had been granted subsidiary protection in Italy, would be a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Accordingly, the author submits that removing her and her children to Italy risks constituting a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. State party 8.1 On 19 April 2016, the State party reiterated its previous observations and recalls that the author had previously been granted subsidiary protection in Italy in 2009 and that her residence permit had been renewed in 2012 and had expired on 29 May 2015. It also reiterated that people who had been granted subsidiary protection in Italy were provided with a residence permit with a validity of three years, renewable. A residence permit entitled the person concerned, inter alia, to a travel document for aliens, to work, to family reunion and to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education under Italian domestic law. 8.2 The State party further submits that, according to a consultation response received from the Italian authorities in the summer of 2015, an alien with a residence permit in Italy who is recognized as a refugee or has protection status can apply for a renewal of the residence permit upon re-entry into Italy, also after the expiration of the residence permit. In February 2016, the Italian authorities confirmed to the Danish authorities that at present an alien who has been granted residence in Italy as a refugee or has 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 has expired when the person was abroad. The State party submits that the author will be able to enter Italy and submit a request for renewal of her residence permit even though her residence permit has expired and that no further obligations can be imposed on Denmark to ensure the author’s entry, and basis for stay, in Italy. In that respect, the State party notes that, according to the author’s own statements, she has already had her residence permit renewed once before. 8.3 With reference to the Committee’s findings in the case of Jasin et al v. Denmark, he State party notes that in the present case the Refugee Appeals Board adequately took into account the information provided by the author. The general background information available to the Board was obtained from a wide range of sources and was compared with the statements made by the relevant asylum seekers, including their past experiences. The State party observes that in the present case the author has had the opportunity to make submissions in writing and orally before the domestic authorities and that the Board has thoroughly examined her case on the basis of those submissions. In addition, the State party notes that case of Jasin, concerned an asylum seeker,28 while in the present case the author had already been issued with a residence permit in Italy when she applied for asylum in Denmark in 2013. In that connection, the State party reiterates its argument that an alien with a residence permit in Italy who was recognized as a refugee or has protection status can apply for a renewal of the residence permit upon re-entry in Italy, after the expiry of the residence permit. Author 9.1 On 19 May 2016, the author refers to her earlier comments and notes that the fact that she had been able to renew her residence permit and that she and her four daughters had left Italy while she was holding a residence permit there, did not put her and her daughters in a different situation than the one in the case of Jasin et al v. Denmark. In that 28 See Jasin et al v. Denmark (note 27 above), para. 8.4. 11