CCPR/C/114/D/2428/2014 as similar. Furthermore the Court’s reasoning regarding article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights can be regarded as corresponding to article 7 of the Covenant. According to the author, the Tarakhel decision seems to indicate that the assumption premise laid out in the Hussein decision can no longer be regarded as sufficient. On the contrary, individual guarantees, especially to secure returning children from destitution or harsh accommodation conditions, are required according to the Court. 5.8 The author reiterates that the fact that she might be able to renew her residence permit in Italy does not exclude the risk she or her children could be faced with harsh living conditions, homelessness or destitution in Italy, as a single mother with two minor children without access to basic shelter, sanitation facilities, food or sufficient medical care, in breach of article 7 of the Covenant. Finally, the author adds that returning families who have already been granted international protection might face even greater difficulties in finding shelter, access to sanitation facilities or food in Italy than returning asylum seekers, as the latter enjoy a minimum of protection within the Dublin Regulation system and may have access to European Union-supported reception facilities. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with article 93, of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as she did not invoke claims related to a possible violation of article 7 of the Covenant, in relation to her return to Italy, before domestic authorities. The Committee observes that her claim before the refugee appeals board was that “she feared being killed by Al-Shabaab in the event that she were returned to Somalia, because she had run away from them”. In addition, the Committee observes that, in the author’s application to appeal the refugee appeals board decision of 15 November 2013, she reiterated that she faced persecution by Al-Shabaab in Mogadishu, and thus would be at real risk of persecution or abuse in the event that she were returned to Somalia (paras. 2.9 and 4.2). Once the decision to return her to Somalia became enforceable and the police contacted her for deportation arrangements, the author raised the preference to be returned to Italy on 10 December 2013 (para. 4.1), which she confirmed on 2 June 2014 (para. 4.3). On 6 March 2014, the author sought that proceedings be reopened with respect to her deportation to Somalia, which was rejected on 16 June 2014. In this application, the author did not raise concerns with respect to living conditions in Italy. 6.4 Immediately after, on 17 June 2014, the author brought the case before the Committee, raising allegations under article 7 of the Covenant with respect to living conditions in Italy, which were never formally brought as an asylum ground per se before the Danish authorities, even though the author was legally represented during domestic proceedings. The author has not challenged the availability or effectiveness of such recourse before the State party’s jurisdictions. Consequently, the latter were deprived of the opportunity to examine such claims, which are at the heart of the author’s communication before the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 9