CCPR/C/124/D/2734/2016 would be particularly vulnerable if she were to return to Italy, as a lone mother of a young child born in Denmark, while the rest of her family is legally resident in that country (para. 2.4). The author clearly explained that she had no contact with her husband, who had remained in Italy, that he had not shown any interest in her or in their son and that only the weight of tradition prevented her from filing for divorce (para. 5.6). 6. Finally, as regards the assurances, the State party cites two decisions by the European Court of Human Rights: E.T. and N.T. v. Switzerland and Italy,3 from which it inferred that the Court would not require individual guarantees from the Italian authorities, despite the fact that, in that case, Italy submitted a letter guaranteeing the provision of care for the authors, which was duly noted by the Court; and F.M. and others v. Denmark,4 which actually concerns the removal procedure in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation and is therefore not applicable to this case. 7. Ultimately, the national authorities’ assessment did not satisfactorily take account of the personal circumstances of the author or her child as regards the general situation of persons granted subsidiary protection in Italy and the author’s previous experience in the country. Their decision was, therefore, clearly arbitrary and the Committee is justified in finding a potential violation of article 7 in the event of a return without a request for assurances. 3 4 GE.19-02298 Application No. 79480/13, 30 May 2017. Application No. 20159/16, 13 September 2016. 15