CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014 number of beneficiaries of international protection end up homeless or squatting in abandoned buildings.18 8.5 The Committee notes the State party’s consultations with the Italian authorities in the third quarter of 2015 and in February 2016, and the confirmation that an alien who had been granted residence in Italy as a recognized refugee or had been granted protection status may submit a request for renewal of his or her residence permit upon re-entry into Italy if the residence permit had expired after the alien entered Denmark. 8.6 The Committee notes that the material before it, as well as information in the public domain, indicates that: there is a lack of available places in the reception facilities for asylum seekers and returnees under the Dublin Regulation; returnees like the authors, who have already been granted a form of protection and benefited from the reception facilities when they were in Italy, are not entitled to accommodation through the government reception centres for asylum seekers;19 and, although beneficiaries of protection are entitled to work and to social rights in Italy, its social system is, in general, insufficient to assist all persons in need, in particular in the country’s current socioeconomic situation. 20 That situation and the difficulties confronting the authors notwithstanding, the Committee considers that the mere fact that the authors, who are a couple, may encounter that situation does not by itself mean that they would necessarily be in a special situation of vulnerability, and in a situation significantly different to many other families, so as to conclude that their return to Italy would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. In the present case, the Committee notes that during their stay in Italy, the authors were given health insurance cards when they were granted asylum and had access to medical treatment, including for the birth of their first two children. Although the authors claim that they had limited access to medical services, they have failed to identify before the Committee the specific circumstances in which they or their children were denied medical services when they needed them. A.S.M. was able to obtain some work in Italy in the past and has not convincingly explained why he would be unable to work again or to seek the Italian authorities’ protection in the case of abuse from an employer. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that, although the authors disagree with the decision of the State party’s authorities to return them to Italy, they have failed to explain why that decision is manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, the authors have not pointed out any procedural irregularities in the procedures of the Danish Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the removal of the authors and their children to Italy by the State party would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the removal of the authors and their children to Italy would not violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee is confident, however, that the State party will duly inform the Italian authorities of the return of the authors and their children, in order for the authors and their children to be taken charge of, upon arrival, in a manner adapted to the age of the children, and that the family will be kept together. 18 19 20 GE.17-20685 UNHCR Recommendations and Swiss Refugee Council, “Reception conditions in Italy”. Jesuit Refugee Service, Protection Interrupted. Swiss Refugee Council, “Reception conditions in Italy”, pp. 21, 24, 35, 39, 41, 51 and 56. 11