CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014 establish a prima facie case for the admissibility of her allegations under article 7 of the Covenant. There are no substantial grounds for believing that she and her son risk being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Italy, and therefore the communication is manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee be of the view that the author’s allegations are admissible, the State party maintains that article 7 of the Covenant would not be violated if the author and her minor son are returned to Italy. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Board and the legislation applying to cases related to the Dublin Regulation.10 4.3 The author did not produce any essential new information about her case before the Committee beyond that already relied upon in connection with her asylum proceedings. The State party considers that the information provided was thoroughly reviewed by the Board in its decision of 13 January 2014. The Board found that the author fell within the purview of section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. However, since she had previously been granted subsidiary protection in Italy, she could return and stay there lawfully with her child. Italy is considered the first country of asylum, which justifies the refusal of the Danish authorities to grant them asylum, in accordance with section 7 (3) of the Aliens Act. 4.4 When applying the principle of first country of asylum, the Board requires, at a minimum, that the asylum seeker is protected against refoulement and that he or she is able to legally enter and take up lawful residence in that country. Such protection includes certain social and economic elements, as asylum seekers must be treated in accordance with basic human standards and their personal integrity must be protected. The core element of such protection is that a person must enjoy personal safety, both upon entering and while staying in the first country of asylum. However, the State party considers that it is not possible to insist that asylum seekers have exactly the same social and living standards as nationals of the country. 4.5 The State party refers to the decision of inadmissibility of the European Court in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy on 2 April 2013 concerning the treatment of asylum seekers, persons granted subsidiary protection in Italy and returnees, in accordance with the Dublin Regulation.11 Taking into account the reports of governmental and non-governmental organizations, the Court considered that “while the general situation and living conditions in Italy of asylum seekers, accepted refugees and aliens who have been granted a residence permit for international protection or humanitarian purposes may disclose some shortcomings … it has not been shown to disclose a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group of people, as was the case in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece”.12 The Court noted that a person granted subsidiary protection in Italy would be provided with a three-year renewable residence permit that allowed the holder to work, obtain a travel document for aliens, apply for family reunification and benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. Likewise, an alien is able to apply for the renewal of his or her residence permit upon its expiry. The Court found the applicant’s allegations manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible and that the applicant could be returned to Italy. With regard to the present case, the State party considers that, although the author has relied on the Court’s findings in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011), its decision in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy (2013) is more recent and specifically addresses the conditions in Italy. Hence, the State party maintains that, as the Court noted, a person granted subsidiary protection in Italy would be provided with a three-year renewable residence permit that allowed the holder to work, obtain a travel document for aliens, apply for family reunification and benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. 10 11 12 See communication No. 2379/2014, Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.14.3. See Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy, paras. 38-39 and 47-48. Ibid., para. 78. 5