CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 Further submissions by the parties State party 6.1 In reply to the author’s comments, on 12 June 2015, the State party noted that the Tarakhel case concerned the refusal by the Swiss authorities to examine the asylum application of an Afghan couple and their six children and the decision to send them back to Italy because the applicants had already applied for asylum in Italy and their application was still pending there. The Court found that, in view of the current situation concerning the reception system of asylum seekers in Italy, and in the absence of detailed and reliable information concerning the specific facility of destination, the Swiss authorities did not possess sufficient assurances that, if returned to Italy, the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children. The majority of the judges of the Grand Chamber held that there would be a violation of article 3 of the European Convention if the Swiss authorities were to send the applicants back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that they would be treated in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would remain together. However, at the same time, referring to its case law, the Court reiterated that article 3 could be interpreted as obliging the High Contracting Parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home, and that article 3 did not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living.25 6.2 According to the State party, Tarakhel v. Switzerland, which concerned a family with the status of asylum seekers in Italy, did not deviate from the findings in previous case law of the Court on individuals and families with a residence permit for Italy, as expressed in, inter alia, Samsam. Accordingly, the State party finds that it cannot be inferred from Tarakhel case that Member States are required to obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities before returning to Italy individuals or families in need of protection who have already been granted residence there. In that regard, the State party reiterates that, according to the judgment in the case of Samsam, those recognized as refugees or who have been granted subsidiary protection in Italy are entitled to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education under Italian domestic law.26 6.3 In the light of the above, the State party maintains that the communication should be rejected by the Committee as inadmissible because the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of her communication under article 7 of the Covenant and that the communication therefore is manifestly unfounded. In the alternative, the State party maintains that article 7 of the Covenant will not be violated if the author and her four children are returned to Italy. Author 7. On 15 December 2015, the author submitted further comments. She refers to her comments of 28 January 2015 and notes the Committee’s conclusions in a previous case in which the Committee noted that various reports continued to point to a lack of available places in reception structures. Moreover, the Committee in particular noted that returnees who had already enjoyed the reception system, which is the case for the author, had no more right to be accommodated in government reception centres for asylum seekers. 27 25 26 27 10 Ibid, para. 95. Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy (application No. 27725/10), decision of 2 April 2013, paras. 37-38. See communication No. 2360/2014, Jasin et al v. Denmark, Views dated 22 July 2015, para. 8.5.