CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 connection, the author reiterates that while she was holding a residence permit in Italy she was forced to a live in destitution, sleep on the streets or in shelters and be dependent on food given to her from churches. When she was sent back to Italy from Finland, she again found herself facing the same living conditions that she had already experienced and again was offered no help from the authorities, while holding a valid residence permit. Hence, the living situation for the author, who no longer holds a valid Italian residence permit, and her four daughters, who at no point have held Italian residence permits, is the same regardless of the fact that the author had a residence permit that she had been able to renew and might be able to renew again. In that respect, the author adds that this time in Italy she would also have to provide for and protect her four daughters. 9.2 Furthermore, as to the State party’s argument that the Refugee Appeals Board in the present case adequately took into account the information provided by the author, the author notes that, despite the fact that she specified the situation she had experienced while in Italy, i.e., her living conditions, her dependency on private donors for food and the absence of help from the Italian authorities when she approached them, the Refugee Appeals Board disregarded these circumstances. Moreover, in its reasoning, the Board made reference to the fact that the author could enter Italy and stay there legally and that she holds Italian papers; however, the Board did not explain how the possibility of a renewal of her residence permit would protect her and her daughters from the extremely harsh living conditions that she had already faced twice while holding a residence permit there. Finally, as to the State party’s argument that in the present case the author is not an asylum seeker and therefore the present case differs from the case of Jasin et al, the author submits that: (a) that case and the present one both involve women who were at one point holders of international protection in Italy and who left Italy and applied for asylum in Denmark; and (b) in both decisions reference was made to Italy as a first country of asylum. State party 10.1 On 3 June 2016, in reply to the author’s comments, the State party referred to its previous observations and notes that the author has not advanced any new information on her and her children’s situation. It further notes that in the case of Jasin et al v. Denmark, the Committee concluded that that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk a person might face if deported. According to the State party, this requires an individualized assessment of the risk faced by the author, rather than reliance on general reports. Accordingly, given that the author has benefitted from the subsidiary protection in the past, she would in principle be entitled to work and receive social benefits. In addition, the State party observes that the case of Jasin concerned the deportation to Italy of a single mother with minor children, whose residence permit for Italy had expired. The present case also concerns a single mother with children; however, two of the author’s four children today are already 18 years old (the twins born on 20 February 1998) and therefore no longer minors. In comparison, the three children in Jasin were considerably younger, aged 7, 5 and 1 when the Committee adopted its views. Moreover, no information is available in the present case to indicate that the author or one or more of her children suffer from any diseases requiring therapy. 10.2 Furthermore, the State party notes that, according to the information in her asylum case, from May 2010 until her entry into Denmark in August 2013, the author stayed in Italy and managed to find food and shelter. According to her own information, the author has an Italian health insurance card and she had the means to acquire a flight ticket to travel to Denmark. It also appears from the information provided in the author’s asylum case that when entering Denmark she was in possession of a cash card, an Italian identification card and an Italian alien’s passport. The State party maintains that the Board adequately took into account the information provided by the author, which is based on her own experiences. The author has had the opportunity to make submissions both in writing and 12