CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 Annex I Joint opinion of Committee members Yuval Shany, Yuji Iwasawa, Photini Pazartzis, Sir Nigel Rodley and Konstantin Vardzelashvili (dissenting) 1. We regret that we are unable to join the majority on the Committee in finding that, in deciding to deport the author and her children to Italy, Denmark would, if it implemented the decision, violate its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 2. According to the well-established case law of the Committee, State parties are obliged not to deport persons from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. a Not every exposure to personal hardship in the country of removal would, however, fall within the scope of the removing State’s non-refoulement obligations.b 3. With the possible exceptions of those individuals who face special hardships owing to a particular situation of vulnerabilityc that renders their plight exceptionally harsh and irreparable in nature, non-availability of social assistance does not constitute grounds for non-refoulement. A contrary interpretation, recognizing all economically destitute individuals as potential victims of article 7 of the Covenant, has little support in the case law of the Committee or in State practice and would extend the protections of article 7 and the non-refoulement principle (which are absolute in nature) beyond a breaking point. 4. Although we supported the Views adopted by the Committee in Jasin et al v. Denmark,d the facts in that case were significantly different than the facts of the present case and do not warrant the same legal conclusion. In Jasin, the author was in a particularly vulnerable situation that made it nearly impossible for her to confront the exceptional hardships expected were she to be deported to Italy: a single mother of three small children who had to contend with her own health problems, who had lost her immigration status in Italy and whom the Italian welfare system has demonstrably failed to assist. Under those exceptional circumstances, we were of the view that, without specific assurances of social assistance, Italy could be considered a “safe country” of removal for the author and her children (raising, as a result, the possibility of de facto refoulement from Italy to her country of origin). 5. In the present case, the author and her two 18-year old twin girls are able-bodied adults who may, pursuant to their subsidiary protection status in Italy, lawfully work and support themselves and the two minor children accompanying them (aged 15 and 12). The facts also suggest that, unlike in the case of Jasin, where there had been a demonstrable failure by the Italian authorities to attend to social needs of the author and her family, in the present case the author’s daughters never registered in Italy and have stayed in the country for five days only. Hence, it has not been established that Italy is unwilling or unable to provide social assistance to single-parent families like the author’s, and such a conclusion a b c d See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See communication No. 265/1987, Vuolanne v. Finland, Views adopted on 7 April 1989. See communication No. 2360/2014, Jasin et al v. Denmark, Views dated 22 July 2015. Ibid. 17