CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 according to which, although the situation in Italy had shortcomings, it had not disclosed “a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers”. 34 13.7 However, the Committee considers that the State party’s conclusion did not adequately take into account the information provided by the author, based on her own personal experience that, despite being granted residence in Italy, she faced intolerable living conditions there. In that connection, the Committee notes that the State party does not explain how, if returned to Italy, the renewable residence permit would actually protect the author and her four children from exceptional hardship and destitution, similar to the ones the author had already experienced in Italy. 35 13.8 The Committee recalls that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk a person might face if deported 36 and considers that it was incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the author and her daughters would face in Italy, rather than rely on general reports and on the assumption that, as the author had benefited from subsidiary protection in the past, she would, in principle, be entitled to the same level of subsidiary protection today. The Committee considers that the State party failed to take into due consideration the special vulnerability of the author who, notwithstanding her entitlement to subsidiary protection, faced homelessness and was not able to provide for herself in the absence of any assistance from the Italian authorities. It has also failed to seek proper assurances from the Italian authorities that the author and her four children, i.e. in a particularly vulnerable situation, would be received in conditions compatible with their status as asylum seekers entitled to temporary protection and the guarantees under article 7 of the Covenant, by requesting that Italy undertake (a) to renew the author’s residents permit,37 and to issue residents permits to her children and not to deport them from Italy; and (b) to receive the author and her children in conditions adapted to the children’s age and the family’s vulnerable status, which would enable them to remain in Italy.38 13.9 Consequently, the Committee considers that the removal of the author and her four children to Italy in these particular circumstances would amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 14. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the deportation of the author and her four daughters to Italy would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 15. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, which establishes that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure that all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction are afforded the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide Obah Hussein Ahmed and her four daughters with an effective remedy, including full reconsideration of her claim, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant, the Committee’s present Views and the need to obtain assurances from Italy, as set out in paragraph 13.8 above, if necessary. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author and her four children to Italy while their request for asylum is being reconsidered. 34 35 36 37 38 See Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy (note 3 above), para.78. See Osman Jasin v. Denmark (note 27 above), para. 8.8; and communication No.2409/2014, Abdilafir Abubakar Ali et al v. Denmark, Views adopted on 29 March 2016, para. 7.7. See, for example, communication No. 1763/2008, Pillai v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, paras. 11.2 and 11.4; and Abdilafir Abubakar Ali et al v. Denmark (note 35 above), para. 7.8. Taking into account the author’s residence permit expired in May 2015 (see para. 2.2 above). See Osman Jasin v. Denmark (note 27 above), para. 8.9; and Abdilafir Abubakar Ali et al v. Denmark (note 35 above), para. 7.8. 15