CCPR/C/124/D/2734/2016 country of first asylum for persons whose residence permits have expired and for persons with children.19 4.10 The Danish Refugee Appeals Board also found that the circumstance that the author’s son had not been registered in Italy because he was born in Denmark could not lead to a different evaluation of her case. There was no basis for assuming that it would not be possible for the author to have her son registered in Italy. The author herself declared at the asylum screening interview that her pregnancy had been confirmed by a general practitioner in Italy, for which reason it must be assumed that it was not unknown to the Italian authorities that the author was about to give birth to a child. 4.11 Based on background information on Italy available to the Danish Refugee Appeals Board and the information provided by the author to the Danish Immigration Service, the State party contests the author’s allegations that she had not received assistance or support from the Italian authorities in securing basic needs like food, employment or housing following the receipt of her residence permit. An update of December 2015 of the Asylum Information Database country report on Italy, to which the author made reference in her complaint (para. 3.2), indicates that refugees and aliens granted subsidiary protection – as in the author’s case – have the same right to medical treatment as Italian nationals.20 It also appears that asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection benefit from free health services on the basis of a self-declaration of destitution. It further appears that the right to medical assistance is acquired at the moment of the registration of the asylum request, and that this right remains applicable even while the residence permit is being renewed. This background information is confirmed by the author’s own information on her stay in Italy, given that she declared at the asylum screening interview that she had braces fixed to her teeth while in Italy, free of charge, through the public dental health service. She also declared that she was in good health, did not suffer from any chronic diseases and had not received treatment for any diseases during her stay in Italy. However, she mentioned that she had received medical assistance in connection with her pregnancy. 4.12 With regard to the integration of the author in Italian society, she stated during her screening interview that she had completed elementary school following one year of study in Italy and had subsequently studied for one year at a hotel management school there. Concerning the author’s fear of living on the streets, she mentioned during that interview that she had registered with a help centre in Cartegna, where it was possible to stay from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m. the following day. She also declared that she imagined that it would have been difficult for her to find other accommodation if she failed to arrive at the help centre by 7 p.m. In her communication to the Committee, the author also referred to the harassment experienced in the street, but during the screening interview she stated that she had had no conflicts with the Italian authorities, private individuals or groups during her stay in Italy. 4.13 With regard to the author’s assumption that she and her newborn son are in a vulnerable situation, the State party observes that being a beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Italy gives the author the option to look for work to make a living and support herself and her son. While the author mentioned in her communication to the Committee that she had applied for jobs in vain in Italy, she declared at the asylum screening interview that she had worked for an elderly lady for four months, until that person passed away. She also cannot be considered to be a single mother because, according to her own statement, she is married and her husband, who is also the father of her son, is still in Italy. Moreover, according to her communication to the Committee, she had established contact with and received support from local relief organizations. The author also stated to the Danish Immigration Service that the reason why she chose to leave Italy after having stayed in the country for several years was that she had learned that she had family members living in Denmark. For the State party, the circumstance that some of the author’s family members 19 20 6 In addition to Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others, the State party also refers to the Court’s inadmissibility decision in A.T.H. v. the Netherlands (application No. 54000/11), judgment of 17 November 2015. Pp. 82–85. Available from https://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/italy. GE.19-02298