CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 that expulsion to Italy would expose her and especially her children to inhuman and degrading treatment, i.e. “living in the streets, in destitution, with no access to housing and food and with no prospect of finding a durable humanitarian solution”. In that regard, the author adds that she found no assistance in finding temporary shelter upon her return to Italy from Finland and that she is no longer eligible for housing if returned from another European country. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 17 October 2014, the State party submitted that the communication is inadmissible, or, alternatively, without merit. In describing the structure and composition of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, the State party submitted that the activities of the Board are based on section 53 (a) of the Aliens Act. Negative decisions of the Danish Immigration Service are automatically appealed to the Board unless the application has been considered manifestly unfounded by the Service. The Board is an independent, quasijudicial body and is considered a court within the meaning of article 39 of the Council of the European Union Directive on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status (2005/85/EC).6 Under the Aliens Act, the Board members are independent and cannot seek directions from the appointing or nominating authority. The Board’s decisions are final. Aliens may, however, bring an appeal before the ordinary courts that can adjudicate any matter concerning the limits to the competence of a public authority. As established by the Supreme Court, the ordinary courts’ review of decisions made by the Board is limited to a review on points of law, and the Board’s assessment of evidence is not subject to review. 4.2 Under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be granted to an alien if the person’s circumstances fall within the provisions of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. That section incorporates article 1 (A) of the Convention so that, in principle, refugees are legally entitled to a residence permit. A residence permit will further be issued to an alien upon application if he or she risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or other serious ill-treatment or punishment in case of return to his country of origin. Section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act is very similar to article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) and, according to the explanatory notes on that section, the immigration authorities must comply with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the State party’s international obligations when applying that provision. In practice, the Refugee Appeals Board will generally consider the conditions for issuing a residence permit to be met when there are specific and individual factors substantiating that the asylum seeker would be exposed to a real risk of the death penalty or ill-treatment upon return. Furthermore, pursuant to section 31 (1) of the Aliens Act, an alien may not be returned to a country where he or she would be at risk of the death penalty or of being subjected to serious ill-treatment, or where the alien would not be protected against being sent on to such country (the principle of non-refoulement). That obligation is absolute and protects all aliens. The State party notes in that connection that the Board and the Danish Immigration Service have jointly drafted a number of memorandums describing in detail the legal protection of asylum seekers afforded by international law, in particular the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention against Torture and Other 6 4 Service Europe, “Protection Interrupted the Dublin Regulation’s Impact on Asylum Seekers Protection” (June 2013). Article 39 deals with the right of asylum seekers to have a decision taken in their case reviewed by a court or tribunal.