CCPR/C/123/D/2575/2015 most into an intolerable one for others. They should also take into account, in cases considered under the Dublin Regulation, the previous experiences of removed individuals in the first country of asylum, which may underscore the special risks that they are likely to face, and may thus render their return to the first country of asylum a particularly traumatic experience for them.31 9.8 The Committee notes the information provided to the State party by the Italian authorities in 2008, according to which an alien who has been granted residency in Italy as a recognized refugee, or been granted protection status, may submit a request to renew his or her expired residence permit upon re-entry into Italy. However, the Committee considers that this information is not sufficient to ensure that, if returned to Italy, the Italian authorities will undertake to renew the author’s residence permit and to issue a permit also to her child. 9.9 The Committee further notes the author’s claims, based on her personal circumstances, that despite being previously granted residency in Italy, she would face intolerable living conditions there. In that connection, the Committee notes that the State party does not explain how, if returned to Italy, the renewable residence permit would actually protect the author and her child from exceptional hardship and destitution, similar to the previous experience of the author in Italy. 32 9.10 Noting the State party’s assumption that as the author had benefited from subsidiary protection in the past, she would, in principle, be entitled to the same level of subsidiary protection today, the Committee also observes the author’s allegations, which have not been contested by the State party, that she faced precarious living conditions in Italy, where, without the necessary financial resources, she was forced to live in an abandoned building with other refugees for approximately one year in an unsafe environment surrounded by violence linked to drug and alcohol abuse. The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that she was hit by a man who tried to assault her sexually. Reports before the Committee indicate that persons in a situation similar to that of the author often end up living on the streets or in precarious and unsafe conditions that are unsuitable, in particular, for young children.33 9.11 In view of the above, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to adequately assess the author’s personal past experience in Italy and the foreseeable consequences of forcibly returning her there; that it did not give due consideration to the special vulnerability of the author, a single mother, with a three-year-old child, who had previously experienced homelessness and destitution in Italy; and that it relied on the general information provided by the Italian authorities without verifying whether the author would have effective access to financial, medical and social assistance. Notwithstanding her formal entitlement to apply for a renewal of a residence permit as part of subsidiary protection in Italy, there is no indication that, in practice, the author would actually be able to find accommodation and provide for herself and her child in the absence of assistance from the Italian authorities, in particular as she is a single parent who has to look after her child. 34 The State party has also failed to seek effective assurances from the Italian authorities that the author and her son would be received in conditions compatible with their status as asylum seekers entitled to temporary protection and the guarantees under article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, the State party has not requested Italy to undertake: (a) to renew the author’s residence permit as part of subsidiary protection and to issue a 31 32 33 34 10 See, for example, Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark, para. 7.7. See, for example, Jasin v. Denmark, para. 8.8. See, for example, United States Department of State, “Italy 2013 human rights report”; Médecins Sans Frontières, “Out of sight. Asylum seekers and refugees in Italy: informal settlements and social marginalization”, p. 8; Asylum Information Database, “Country report: Italy”, pp. 73–74; Swiss Refugee Council, “Reception conditions in Italy”, pp. 30 and 57; and Danish Refugee Council and Swiss Refugee Council, “Is mutual trust enough? The situation of persons with special reception needs upon return to Italy” (February 2017), pp. 5 and 21. See Hashi v. Denmark, para. 9.10. GE.19-07290