CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the European Convention and the Covenant. 4.3 Under section 7 (3) of the Aliens Act, issuance of a residence permit may be refused if the alien has already obtained protection in another country or if the alien has close ties with another country where he or she must be deemed able to obtain protection. Section 7 of the Act is structured so that it must first be considered whether an asylum seeker is deemed to have a need for protection and, if so, a decision will then be made as to whether another country has a stronger obligation than Denmark to offer him or her protection. The 2013 annual report of the Executive Committee of the Refugee Appeals Board describes the criteria to be applied in the assessment of whether a country is able to afford protection to an asylum seeker. The paramount requirement is that the asylum seekers will be readmitted to the country and that they are able to stay there legally. In that regard, the State party submits that it cannot be required that they will have completely the same social living standards as the country’s own nationals, but their personal integrity must be protected. The core of the concept of protection is that the individuals must enjoy personal safety both when they enter and stay in the country. The report also mentions a detailed review of the case law of the Board and the concept of protection. In that regard, the State party notes that the condition for refusing a residence permit under section 7 (3) of the Act is that there is a well-founded prospect that the asylum seeker will be able to enter and also in the future to stay in the country of first asylum without suffering attacks on his or her personal integrity. In addition, it is a mandatory minimum requirement that the asylum seeker is protected against being returned to the country of persecution or to a country in which he or she is not protected against return to the country of persecution. The State party further provides a detailed description of the proceedings before the Board and its principles related to the assessment of evidence in the asylum case brought before it. 4.4 As to the admissibility and merits of the communication, the State party argues that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of her communication under article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Italy. The communication is therefore manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. In the alternative, the State party submits that that the author has not sufficiently established that article 7 would be violated in the event that she and her four children are returned to Italy. It follows from the Committee’s jurisprudence that States parties are under an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, whether in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal, and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.7 4.5 The State party observes that, in her communication, the author did not provide any essential new information regarding her circumstances beyond the information already relied upon in connection with her asylum proceedings and that the Refugee Appeals Board has already considered these circumstances in its decision of 11 March 2014. The Board found that the author fell within section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act (protection status); however, she had been granted asylum in Italy in 2009 and her residence permit was valid until 29 May 2015. Moreover, the majority of the Board found as a fact that the author was able 7 See communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2. 5