CEDAW/C/76/D/122/2017 other migrants who, she hoped, would guide her, her only hope being to rejoin her husband in Switzerland. She slept in the public parks in Como in inhuman and degrading conditions. 5.6 According to the author, the State party thus fell short of its obligations under the Convention by concluding that, because she was a beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Italy, her removal could be enforced. Had it made an adequate individual assessment of her case, the State party would have recognized the exceptional circumstances she was facing and the imperative need to protect her as a victim of forced marriage and serious sexual abuse. 5.7 The author notes that it is imperative for her to be in a stable environment, which will be the case in Switzerland, where her husband, with whom she has a child and an effective family life, resides. The author again refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, which has held that separating a vulnerable person from the family support that he or she enjoys and depriving that person of specialized treatment constitutes a violation of the Convention against Torture. 24 As for the State party’s argument that the author could settle in Italy with her husband and child, the author contends that no facility is available in which they could be accommodated in Italy and that she will receive no assistance from the State, despite enjoying subsidiary protection. She adds that the couple is integrated in Switzerland, where her husband is gainfully employed. She maintains that it is inconceivable to require a couple to settle with a small child in Italy, a country of which, moreover, she has bitter memories and which she associates with trauma similar to that which she experienced in Somalia. 5.8 The author claims that she has sufficiently substantiated the trauma she suffered, again citing the content of her medical certificates, including the risk of suicide i n the event of removal referred to therein. Citing the concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Italy, in which the Committee found that there was a lack of services for refugees, particularly women with specific needs and vulnerabilities, 25 the author concludes that the State party has not taken the necessary measures to prevent her from falling victim once again to trauma and trafficking in persons and that there is a real risk that she would be subjected to acts of discrimination under t he Convention in the event of her return, which would constitute a violation of articles 2 (d) and 6 of the Convention. 5.9 Concerning the application of article 2 (d) of the Convention, the author repeats that, contrary to its assertions, the State party is placing her at risk of being discriminated against on the basis that the entire population is similarly affected. The author recalls, however, that it is incumbent on the State party to take all necessary measures to avoid discrimination of any kind against her. The Committee has already noted with concern: the lack in Italy of a comprehensive and harmonized framework, including clear procedures, guidelines and standards, for the identification of and provision of assistance to individuals with specific needs and vulnerabilities, especially refugees and asylum seekers who are women and girls. It also noted with concern: the insufficient number of reception centres and the overcrowding and substandard conditions in existing centres owing to the increasing number of refugees and asylum seekers entering the country; the lack of services provided to refugees and asylum seekers placed in administrative detention, in particular to women with specific needs and vulnerabilities; and the insufficient financial supp ort given to civil society organizations working with women refugees and asylum seekers. 26 __________________ 24 25 26 12/16 The author refers to A.N. v. Switzerland. CEDAW/C/ITA/CO/7, para. 15. Ibid. 20-11108