CCPR/C/114/D/2428/2014
experience severe difficulties gaining access to health services.5 In view of this situation,
Italy does not currently meet the necessary humanitarian standards for the principle of first
country asylum to be applied.
3.3
The author adds that, if they were to return to Italy, she and her children would be at
a real risk of facing inhuman and degrading treatment, because they would be fully
dependent on charity. The author further fears that she would be in a desperate situation
whereby she would not be able to provide her children with food or shelter.
State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1
On 19 December 2014, the State party submitted that the communication should be
declared inadmissible as the author had failed to exhaust domestic remedies or,
alternatively, considered inadmissible as the author had failed to establish a prima facie
case. The State party informed the Committee that, after the author’s asylum application
was rejected — a decision that was confirmed by the refugee appeals board on 15
November 2013 — the author informed the national police on 10 December 2013 that she
did not want to return voluntarily to Somalia but instead wanted to return to Italy, a country
which had issued her and her eldest child residence permits that were valid until 2015.
Against this background, the national police contacted the Italian authorities, which
confirmed that both the author and her eldest daughter held valid residence permits, but that
the author should contact the Italian authorities in Sienna to apply for a permit for her
youngest daughter.
4.2
By its letter of 6 March 2014, the author��s counsel applied for a reopening of the
asylum proceedings in Denmark. The reasons put forward to reopen the proceedings were,
inter alia, that the author would be at risk if returned to Somalia because there was still
unrest, that she had been persecuted by Al-Shabaab and that she would prefer to go to Italy
if she had to be returned from Denmark. The author referred to the general conditions in
Somalia, including the methods of attack used by Al-Shabaab; to increases in attacks by AlShabaab in 2013; and to the fact that the Somali authorities were unable to provide
protection to civilians persecuted by Al-Shabaab in Mogadishu.
4.3
On 2 June 2014, the author confirmed to the national police that she still wanted to
leave for Italy. Accordingly, the national police planned an assisted voluntary return of the
author and her two children to Italy on 20 June 2014.
4.4
On 16 June 2014, the refugee appeals board refused to reopen the asylum
proceedings, as it found no reason to do so, given that no substantial new information had
been exposed, beyond the information available to the board at the time of the original
hearing.
5
Database, Country Report – Italy (May 2013), p. 37; the United States of America Department of
State, 2012 Country Report on Human Rights Practices – Italy, 19 April 2013, available from
www.refworld.org/docid/517e6e2214.html; 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, Sects. 4 and 5; and Jesuit Refugee Service, “Protection
interrupted – The Dublin regulation’s impact on asylum seekers’ protection”, June 2013, pp. 152 and
161.
The author cites 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. 143;
and 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.
5