CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 4.8 The State party notes that the European Court further stated10 that the assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of article 3 must necessarily be a rigorous one and inevitably requires that the Court assess the conditions in the receiving country against the standard of the article. The Court concluded 11 that the mere fact of return to a country where one’s economic position would be worse than in the expelling State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by article 3, and that article 3 cannot be interpreted as obliging the States parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home; this provision does not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living. The Court noted that aliens who are subject to expulsion cannot in principle claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a State and continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance and services provided by the expelling State. Accordingly, the Court concluded that, in the absence of exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds against removal, the fact that the applicant’s material and social living conditions would be significantly reduced if he or she were to be removed is not sufficient. 4.9 Concerning the conditions in Italy, taking into account reports of governmental and non-governmental organizations, the Court considered that, while the general situation and living conditions in Italy of asylum seekers, accepted refugees and aliens who have been granted a residence permit for international protection or humanitarian purposes may disclose some shortcomings, it has not been shown to disclose a systemic failure to provide support or facilities catering for asylum seekers as members of a particularly vulnerable group of people.12 The Court found the applicant’s allegations manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible and concluded that the applicant with her children could be returned to Italy. 4.10 In the light of the above, the State party submits that the author in the present case, who has been granted subsidiary protection in Italy, would be provided with a renewable residence permit valid for three years allowing her to work, obtain a travel document for aliens, family reunification and benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health care, social housing and education. 4.11 The State party further notes that the author in her initial submission referred, inter alia, to the decisions of the European Court in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, and to the report of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe following his visit to Italy from 3 to 6 July 2012.13 However, the decision and report were already available at the time when the inadmissibility decision was adopted by the Court in the case of Samsam. Furthermore, the author has mainly referred to reports and other background material concerning reception conditions in Italy that are only relevant to asylum seekers, including returnees under the Dublin Regulation, and not to persons who, like the author, have already been granted subsidiary protection. The State party finally observes that, before her entry in Denmark, the author had lived for more than three years in Italy, and currently holds an Italian identification card, residence permit, alien’s passport and health insurance card. The State party thus submits that the author has failed to render it probable that, in Italy, she and her four children would be at risk of suffering irreparable damage. 10 11 12 13 Ibid, para. 68. Ibid, paras. 70 and 71. Ibid, para.78. Available from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&id=1975447&direct=true. 7