CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015 4.8 The State party also submits that the authors’ circumstances are in contrast with those in the Views adopted by the Committee in Warda Osman Jasin et. al. v. Denmark.15 The State party notes that, in the present case, the authors had been already in possession of residence permits for Italy, which expired on 25 March 2013, when they applied for asylum in Denmark on 28 August 2012. The State party further submits that the fact that the authors left Italy and placed themselves in a situation whereby their residence permits expired does not mean that they can be considered asylum seekers today.16 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 4 July 2016, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. The authors submit that they have adequately explained the reasons for which they fear that their deportation to Italy would result in a breach of article 7 of the Covenant and consider that their claims in this regard have been duly substantiated. The authors further submit that the Refugees Appeals Board assessment falls short of the requirements of an individualized assessment of the risk that they would face if deported to Italy. The authors note that, during their stay in Italy, when they had residence permits, they lived in an abandoned clinic, which lacked the most basic facilities, such as water and electricity. Only for a few months during F.H.M.’s second pregnancy were the family offered a room in a student dormitory. When she first went into labour, she was rejected by a hospital, and only with the intervention of an influential local person was she accepted into the hospital to give birth. During her pregnancy, she had no access to health care. The authors lived off food provided by the church. For three years, the authors were not offered access to housing, social benefits or integration programmes from the Italian authorities, although Y.A.A. did attend language and communication courses for a while, and they were faced with intolerable living conditions during almost their entire time in Italy. 5.2 The authors further indicate that asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection in Italy often face the same severe difficulties in finding basic shelter, access to health-care facilities and food. The authors quote a report by the United States of America Department of State on Italy, which states: Authorities set up temporary centers to house mixed-migrant populations, including refugees and asylum seekers but could not keep pace with the high number of arrivals … Non-governmental organizations reported thousands of legal and irregular foreigners, including migrants and refugees, lived in abandoned buildings in Rome and other major cities and had limited access to public services. The press reported limited health care, inadequate and overcrowded facilities, and a lack of access to legal counselling and basic education. Representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration, and other humanitarian organizations denounced inhuman living conditions, in particular overcrowding, in reception centers.17 The authors also refer to a report by the organization Médecins Sans Frontières that states that: 15 16 17 8 Communication No. 2360/2014, Warda Osman Jasin et. al. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015. Ibid. para. 8.4. United States of America, Department of State, “Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Italy for 2016”, p. 11. Available from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/265646.pdf.