CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014 are required to obtain individual guarantees from the Italian authorities before deporting to Italy individuals or families in need of protection who have already been granted residence in Italy. 4.12 The State party reiterates in this respect that it appears from the decision in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy that persons recognized as refugees or granted subsidiary protection in Italy are entitled to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education under Italian domestic law. Accordingly, article 7 of the Covenant does not prevent the State party from enforcing the Dublin II Regulation in respect of the author and her two children. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 21 August 2015, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. She asserts that the living conditions in Italy both for asylum seekers and for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, such as her, are similar, since there is no effective integration scheme in place. Asylum seekers and recipients of subsidiary protection thus often face the same severe difficulties in finding basic shelter, food, and access to sanitary facilities.13 The author refers to the 2013 Jesuit Refugee Service report, in which it is stated that the real problem concerns those who are sent back to Italy and had already been granted some kind of protection; they may have already stayed in at least one of the accommodation options available upon initial arrival but, if they left the centre voluntarily before the established time, they are no longer entitled to accommodation in the government reception centres for asylum seekers. 14 5.2 The author does not dispute the fact that she may travel to Italy and live there legally with her children. The issue is not whether there is a risk of refoulement. The information available indicates that a significant number of refugees are left without accommodation in Italy, as the hosting capacity is insufficient. The relevant issue is thus that the author will not benefit from proper housing and adequate medical treatment, and that she and her children will be exposed to substandard living conditions, lack of social assistance from the authorities and no prospect of finding a durable humanitarian solution. 5.3 The author also disputes the interpretation of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights referred to by the State party. The author contends that in the Samsam case notably, 15 the information provided by the court on the conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees does not correspond to the findings of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Also, in contrast to the Samsam case, the author in the present case has already experienced living as a refugee in Italy, where she failed to receive any assistance, was not able to pay her rent, and could not secure the basic needs of her family, including the medical assistance that she and her son needed. The author recalls that she had had to prostitute herself to support her family. Therefore, there is no basis for assuming that the Italian authorities will be able to receive her and her children in accordance with basic humane standards. Living lawfully in the country, the author has already experienced the living conditions there, which she found to be desperate. 5.4 The author also notes that the judgment in the Tarakhel case concerned an asylumseeking family, and thus does not correspond to her situation. Nevertheless, the case is relevant to the extent that the living conditions and the difficulties in finding shelter, health care and food are similar for asylum seekers and persons who have already been granted protection. The European Court of Human Rights noted that, in the current situation in Italy, “the possibility that a significant number of asylum seekers may be left without accommodation or accommodated in overcrowded facilities without any privacy, or even in 13 14 15 6 The author refers, inter alia, to the October 2013 report of the Swiss Refugee Council entitled “Reception conditions in Italy: report on the current situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin returnees”. Jesuit Refugee Service, “Protection interrupted: the Dublin Regulation’s impact on asylum seekers’ protection”, June 2013, p. 152. See Samsam Mohammad Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy, particularly paras. 38 and 39.