CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014 minor children on the street. Against that background, they contend that their personal integrity would not be reasonably protected in Italy. 4 3.3 The authors claim that returning them and their children to Italy would constitute a violation of article 17 of the Covenant. On several occasions during their stay in Italy, they were prevented from having a family life and living together. It would amount to a violation of their children’s rights under article 24 of the Covenant, because they would not have measures of protection. They also claim that, in its decision, the Refugee Appeals Board did not take into account the best interests of their children and the fact that they might face abuse and social marginalization and lack access to school and adequate health care. 3.4 In the UNHCR Recommendations, the High Commissioner pointed out that there were shortcomings in both Italian legislation and practice, which might hinder the efforts of refugees to become self-reliant; that the Protection System for Asylum Seekers and Refugees, given its low capacity, was limited in its ability to assist all beneficiaries of international protection with securing adequate accommodation; and that an increasing number of such beneficiaries ended up homeless or squatting in abandoned buildings.5 In its report on reception conditions in Italy, the Swiss Refugee Council noted that persons with international protection status generally had no access to accommodation funded by the European Refugee Fund (Fondo Europeo per i Rifugiati) nor to the government accommodation centres for asylum seekers (Centri di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo); that it was extremely difficult for people who had been granted protection status and were returned to Italy to find accommodation; that, although beneficiaries of protection had the same status as native Italians concerning social rights, what the social assistance system provided was, in general, insufficient; that the maximum length of stay in a Protection System housing project was six months, which could be extended to one year or longer in the case of vulnerable persons; and that the length of stay was insufficient to enable people to provide for themselves beyond that period, especially in view of the current state of the job market. The Council also noted that, in Rome, high numbers of asylum seekers and people with international protection status were living in squats and slums, which were completely inadequate for children, and that women and children in particular faced threats and violence there. Families with both parents were not considered vulnerable in Italy. Although Italian law provided that all children must have accommodation and that they had the right to live with their parents, that right was not always guaranteed and families were often separated. Vulnerable persons were given priority to the extent that there were special places for them in accommodation centres. Due to the limited number of suitable places and the long waiting list, however, they risked ending up on the street. 6 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 15 October 2014, the State party provided observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. It submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible for non-substantiation. The State party also informed the Committee that, in July 2014, R.A.H. gave birth to her third child. 4.2 The State party considers that the authors failed to establish a prima facie case for the admissibility of their allegations under article 7 of the Covenant. There are no substantial grounds for believing that the authors risk being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Italy, therefore the communication is manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.3 With regard to the authors’ allegations under articles 17 and 24 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the authors are seeking to apply those obligations in an extraterritorial manner. The authors’ allegations are not based on any treatment that they 4 5 6 GE.17-20685 The authors refer to UNHCR, UNHCR Recommendations on Important Aspects of Refugee Protection in Italy, July 2012; and Swiss Refugee Council “Reception conditions in Italy: report on the current situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin returnees”, October 2013. UNHCR Recommendations, pp. 12-13. Swiss Refugee Council, “Reception conditions in Italy”, pp. 21, 24, 35, 39, 41, 51 and 56. 5