CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015
Upon arrival at the airport, they were given no assistance or guidance from the Italian
authorities.
2.5
Facing homelessness once again, they took advice from other Somali refugees and
went to Turin to live in an abandoned clinic occupied by homeless refugees and asylum
seekers. The conditions were very poor and lacked basic facilities. There was no water,
electricity or heat, and the sanitary facilities were poor. Many of the occupants were often
under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and the authors felt unsafe, especially during
F.H.M.’s pregnancy in 2009.
2.6
During F.H.M.’s first pregnancy, in 2009, she had no access to health care. When
she went into labor, the hospital rejected her because the authors had no official address —
as they were living at the time in the abandoned building in Turin — and therefore no
health cards. A woman from a local communist party who had been assisting refugees
helped them and arranged with the hospital that F.H.M. could be admitted during delivery.
After the birth of their eldest son, the authors once again faced homelessness and sought
shelter in abandoned houses, again in Turin. Owing to a lack of basic facilities and the
apparent use of drugs in the house, the authors found it difficult and unsafe to stay there
with a toddler.
2.7
When F.H.M. got pregnant again, in 2010, the authors were assisted by the same
woman from the communist party, who arranged for them to stay in a room in a student
dormitory in Turin. The authors lived in the dormitory for several months. F.H.M. gave
birth to their second child in a hospital during that period. Access to the hospital was
arranged once again by the woman from the communist party. Shortly after the birth of the
second child, the authors were asked to leave the dormitory as it was not intended for
families with children. Later, the authors spent nights in churches and were asked during
the day to leave.
2.8
During their three years in Turin, the authors were not offered access to housing,
social benefits or an integration programme by the Italian authorities. The authors received
help from the local branch of the communist party and food from churches. Y.A.A.
searched for employment, without success. At his own initiative, he attended free language
courses and courses on communication at an institute in Turin for six months.
2.9
Faced with homelessness, and with no access to an integration programme or
employment, the authors with their two children travelled to Sweden, where they applied
for asylum in April 2012. Their applications were rejected as they had been granted a
residence permit by the Italian authorities. When the Swedish authorities planned to deport
them to Italy, the authors travelled to Denmark, where they applied for asylum on 28
August 2012. Upon arrival in Denmark, the authors’ residence permits in Italy were still
valid. F.H.M. gave birth to the authors’ third child in February 2013 in Denmark.
2.10 On 4 November 2013, the Danish Immigration Service rejected their application for
asylum. The case was sent to the Refugees Appeals Board, which, on 25 February 2014,
upheld the decision by the Immigration Service, stating that F.H.M., and consequently
Y.A.A., were in need of subsidiary protection owing to the risk of prosecution in Somalia,
but that the authors could be returned to Italy in accordance with the principle of first
country of asylum. In its decision, the Board stated that, although the residence permit of
4
Danish Refugee Appeals Board, dated on 25 February 2014, it was stated that the authors had been
registered on 20 January 2009.
No information is available on the reason for their deportation to Italy from Finland.
3