CCPR/C/114/D/2428/2014
small daughter and without access to food, was extremely difficult. She found the sanitary
conditions in the apartment where she used to live had worsened. The author did not
receive any medical assistance or examinations during her pregnancy, as she was informed
that, to do so, she would need a permanent address.
2.8
Having failed to find a stable job, schooling for her child, decent accommodation
and access to medical care in Italy, the author travelled to Denmark on 31 May 2012, where
she applied for asylum on the same day. On 6 July 2012, she gave birth to her second child.
The author had a disagreement with her husband, and she has not been in contact with him
since 2012.
2.9
In her asylum claim, the author sought protection against the situation in Somalia.
On 12 October 2013, the Danish immigration service rejected her application for asylum, as
it found the author to lack credibility. The decision was upheld by the refugee appeals
board on 15 November 2013, and the author and her children were ordered to leave
Denmark and return to Somalia. The asylum authorities did not address the author’s claim
regarding the situation in Italy, although the author had mentioned the harsh and degrading
living conditions she faced there. On 6 March 2014, the author applied to the refugees
appeals board for it to reopen the case on the grounds that its assessment of the case had not
been consistent with other similar cases of Somali asylum seekers. This request was
rejected on 16 June 2014.
2.10 Meanwhile, the Danish National Police made arrangements to return the author to
Italy under the European Union Return Directive.
2.11 The author claims that she has exhausted domestic remedies, as decisions of the
Danish refugee appeals board cannot be appealed. The application for the reopening of the
case lacks suspensive effect.
The complaint
3.1
The author submits that, by forcibly returning her and her children to Italy, the State
party would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 2 Since she was requested to
leave the reception centre after being granted subsidiary protection, the author has been
unable to find either a durable housing solution or assistance in finding employment, social
benefits or access to education for her eldest daughter.
3.2
The author submits that reception conditions in Italy and basic standards for
refugees with valid or expired residence permits do not comply with international
obligations of protection.3 On this issue, the author cites a report stating that, if international
protection seekers returning to Italy have already been granted a form of protection and
already enjoyed the reception system when they were in Italy, they have no more right to be
accommodated in reception facilities in Italy.4 She asserts that asylum seekers in Italy
2
3
4
4
The author also cites the following decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: M.S.S. v.
Belgium and Greece (30696/09); Samsam Mohammad Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and
Italy (27725/10).
The author refers to Organisation Suisse d’aide aux réfugiés, “Reception conditions in Italy – Report
on the current situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin
returnees”, October 2013, p. 11; Asylum Information Database, Country Report – Italy, May 2013, p.
34; and Council of Europe, Report by Nils Muiznieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the
Council of Europe, following his visit to Italy from 3 to 6 July 2012, 18 September 2012, p. 150.
The author cites European Network for technical cooperation of the application of the Dublin II
Regulation, “Dublin II Regulation National Report on Italy”, available at: www.dublinproject.eu/dublin/Dublin-news/New-report-Dublin-II-regulation-lives-on-hold. Regarding
resettlement conditions in Italy for asylum seekers, the author also cites the Asylum Information