CCPR/C/123/D/2575/2015 with minor children to Italy amounted to a violation of the Covenant. However, in the opinion of the Board, such findings by the Committee could not lead to a different outcome in the present case. The State party also submitted that the Board’s assessment of the conditions of authors with minor children to be transferred to Italy were consistent with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.25 7.2 The State party claimed that, as can be seen from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the “actual practice” of Italy is consistent with the country’s international legal obligations. The State party found that the reference made by the adult author to her previous experiences in Italy and to the background information in general failed to demonstrate that there were substantial grounds for believing that, if deported to Italy, the author would face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The State party therefore still found that Italy could serve as the country of first asylum of the author and that the deportation of the author to Italy would not constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.4 As the Committee considers the author’s claims under article 7 otherwise substantiated, it declares them admissible and proceeds with their consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that deporting her and her three-year-old son to Italy, based on the Dublin Regulation principle of “first country of asylum”, would expose them to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author bases her arguments on, inter alia, the actual treatment she experienced after she was granted a residence permit in Italy in 2009; her particular vulnerability as a single mother with a small child; the general conditions in reception facilities for asylum seekers in Italy; and the failure of the Italian integration scheme in providing access to financial and social services for beneficiaries of international protection, as described in various reports. The Committee also notes the author’s argument that she and her son would face homelessness, destitution, lack of access to health care and risks to their personal safety, as demonstrated by her previous experience in Italy. The Committee further notes the author’s submission that her residence permit, received in the context of subsidiary protection, has now expired and that she fears, if returned to Italy, being unable to renew the permit, due to the difficulties she faced in acquiring it initially. The author further fears not being able to obtain a residence permit for her son, who was born in Denmark and has no birth registration record or residence permit in Italy. 25 8 See, for example, E.T. and N.T. v. Switzerland and Italy (application No. 79480/13), decision of 30 May 2017. GE.19-07290