CCPR/C/124/D/2734/2016 whom she had not seen for six years, were in Denmark and because she could not find a job in Italy. 9.9 The Committee observes that the material before it, as well as general information on the situation of refugees and asylum seekers in Italy, indicate that there may be a lack of available places in the reception facilities for asylum seekers and returnees and that these facilities are often in poor sanitary conditions. According to those sources, returnees like the author may not be entitled to accommodation in centres for asylum seekers as she had already benefited from the reception facilities when in Italy. Although beneficiaries of protection are generally entitled to work and enjoy social rights in Italy, the Committee observes that its social system is in general insufficient to attend to all persons in need. The Committee also observes that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board held that, during her previous stay in Italy the author was able to find work and accommodation for periods of time and had access to medical and educational services, and also that she was in good health. In addition, her husband, who is the child’s father, lives in Italy. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the author has not explained why she would not be able to seek the protection of the Italian authorities should she be unable to find employment. Notwithstanding the fact that it is difficult in practice for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to have access to the labour market or to housing, the author has failed to substantiate a real and personal risk if she returned to Italy. The fact that she may possibly be confronted with serious difficulties upon return by itself does not necessarily mean that she would be in a special situation of vulnerability – and in a situation significantly different to many other refugee families – such as to conclude that her return to Italy would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 7 of the Covenant.37 9.10 Furthermore, the Committee finds that, although the author disagrees with the decision of the State party’s authorities to return her to Italy as her country of first asylum, she has failed to explain why that decision is manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary, nor has she pointed out any procedural irregularities in the procedures before the Danish Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the removal of the author to Italy by the State party would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 9.11 Without prejudice to the continuing responsibility of the State party to take into account the present situation of the country to which the author would be deported, in the light of the available information regarding the author’s personal circumstances, the Committee considers that the information before it does not show that the author would face a personal and real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant if she were removed to Italy. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Italy would not violate her rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee, however, is confident that the State party will duly inform the Italian authorities of the author’s removal, in order for the author and her child to be kept together and to be taken charge of in a manner adapted to their needs, especially taking into account the age of the author’s son. 37 GE.19-02298 R.I.H. and S.M.D. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/120/D/2640/2015), para. 8.6; and B.M.I. and N.A.K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/118/D/2569/2015), para. 8.6. 11