CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any contrary information by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the authors’ claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, in the light of its past jurisprudence in cases pertaining to the Dublin II Regulation,19 the real difficulties encountered by the authors when they had previously lived in Italy, the very young age of their four children and the information before the Committee on the limited nature of the assurances issued by the authorities in Italy, it cannot regard the communication as clearly lacking in substance. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that deporting them and their four children 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 authors base their arguments, inter alia, on the actual treatment they received after they had been granted a residence permit in Italy and on the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protect in Italy, as mentioned in various reports. The Committee notes the authors’ argument they would face homelessness, destitution and limited access to health care, as demonstrated by their experience after they had been granted subsidiary protection in January 2009. The Committee further notes the authors’ submission that, since they had already benefitted from the reception system when they first arrived in Italy, and as they had already been granted a form of protection, they would have no access to accommodation in the reception facilities.20 7.3 The Committee recalls paragraph 12 its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high. 21 The Committee further recalls its 19 See, for example, Warda Osman Jasin et al. v. Denmark (footnote 16 above); communications No. 2409/2014, Abdilafir Abubakar Ali et al v. Denmark, Views adopted on 29 March 2016; and No 2608/2015, R.A.A. and Z. M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 28 October 2016. 20 See Dublin II Regulation: National report on Italy (see footnote 7 above); “Country report: Italy” (see footnote 6 above), p. 37;“Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012: Italy” (see footnote 7 above); Reception conditions in Italy (see footnote 6 above), pp. 4-5; and Protection Interrupted (see footnote 7 above), pp. 152 and 161. 21 See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. 10