CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 and anxiety, with particular traumatic consequences. 20 The Court required Switzerland to obtain assurances from its Italian counterparts that the applicants (a family) would be received in facilities and conditions adapted to the age of the children; if such assurances were not made, Switzerland would be in violation of article 3 of the European Convention by transferring them to Italy.21 The author argues that, in the light of that finding, the harsh conditions faced by recipients of subsidiary protection returning to Italy would fall within the scope of article 3 of the European Convention, which corresponds to article 7 of the Covenant.22 5.4 The author submits that the Tarakhel decision seems to indicate that the assumption premise laid out in the Samsam decision can no longer be regarded as sufficient. On the contrary, individual guarantees especially securing returning children from destitution and harsh accommodation conditions are required according to the European Convention. In that connection, the author notes that the issue of the Tarakhel case was not the risk of refoulement but the living conditions in the overcrowded reception facilities for asylum seekers. Thus, the Tarakhel decision indicates that the fact that a person is protected from refoulement in Italy does not exclude violations of article 3 of the European Convention due to harsh living conditions, especially for families with children. Accordingly, the fact that the author in the present case has been able to renew her residence permit in Italy and holds formal Italian papers does not exclude the risk of her and her children being faced with harsh living conditions, homelessness and destitution with no realistic prospect of improvement, constituting a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. 5.5 The author adds that returning families who have already been granted international protection might even face greater difficulties in finding shelter, access to sanitarian facilities and food than returning asylum seekers, as the latter enjoy a minimum of protection within the Dublin Regulation system and, if fortunate, have access to reception facilities supported by the European Union. Returning families with international protection do not have access to reception facilities and thus face the risk of homelessness immediately upon return with little prospect of improving their situation owing to the malfunction of the Italian integration scheme for beneficiaries of international protection. The author does not contest that lack of financial assistance and housing does not, in all cases, constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. However, she reiterates that she is a single mother with minor children and that her deportation would leave her in a desperate situation where basic rights, as described above, are not met. The author emphasizes that in the Tarakhel case the Court stated that the extraditing State should perform an individualized examination of the person concerned to preclude the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in the receiving country. 23 The present case, like the Tarakhel case, involves minor children. The author reiterates that in the Tarakhel case the Court emphasized that children must be viewed as extremely vulnerable and as having specific needs.24 In these circumstances, in the present case there is a substantial risk that the author and her children would not have any housing and therefore are destined to homelessness. 20 21 22 23 24 Ibid., para. 119. Ibid. paras. 120 and 122. Ibid., para. 119. Ibid, para. 104 Ibid., para. 119. 9