CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 orally before several bodies and the Board has thoroughly examined her case on the basis of those submissions. The State party notes that on 1 September 2015 the author, her two adult children and her two minor children were registered as having failed to appear at the asylum centre at which they had been accommodated. Author 11. On 8 June 2016, the author notes that in its further observations the State party merely reiterates information it already presented previously. As to the State party’s particular statement that she managed to find food and shelter, the author notes that the fact that she actually survived cannot stand alone when assessing whether her return to Italy would be in breach of article 7 of the Covenant. More relevant is the quality of the food and shelter she found and the way she managed to find it. Similarly, the possession of a health insurance card and an identification card is less relevant than the actual value of those documents, i.e., the extent to which they actually guarantee access to services. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 12.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 12.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 12.3 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. 12.4 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. The Committee however considers that the inadmissibility argument adduced by the State party is intimately linked to the merits of the case and should thus be considered at that stage. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 13.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 13.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that deporting her and her four daughters to Italy, based on the Dublin 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 she had received after she had been granted residence permit in Italy and on the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees entering Italy, as found in various reports. 13