CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014
4.3
The State party recalls that the author and her two children entered Denmark on 16
July 2012 without valid travel documents. Later the same day, the author applied for
asylum. On 12 March 2014, the Danish Immigration Service refused the author asylum. On
14 August 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld that decision. On 14 December 2014,
the author brought the case before the Committee, claiming that it would constitute a breach
of article 7 of the Covenant to deport her and her two children to Italy.6
4.4
The State party referred to the Refugee Appeals Board decision of 14 August 2014,
which itself recalled the Danish Immigration Service’s finding that, viewed in isolation, the
author and her two accompanying children, born in 1996 and 2011, fell within section 7 (1)
of the Aliens Act because she had converted to Christianity. The Refugee Appeals Board
thus limited its analysis to the issue of whether Italy could serve as the author’s country of
first asylum.
4.5
The State party observes that in her communication, the author did not provide any
essential new information regarding her circumstances beyond the information already
relied upon in connection with her asylum proceedings and that the Refugee Appeals Board
has already considered these circumstances. The Refugee Appeals Board found that the
author fell within section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act (protection status), however she had been
granted asylum in Italy in 2008 and her residence permit could be renewed. Moreover, the
majority of the Refugee Appeals Board found as a fact that the author was able to enter
Italy and stay there lawfully. It therefore refused to grant asylum to the author with
reference to section 7 (3) of the Aliens Act (the country of first asylum principle). The State
party adds that, when considering whether a country may serve as a country of first asylum,
the Refugee Appeals Board requires as a mandatory minimum that the asylum seeker be
protected against refoulement. It must also be possible for the asylum seeker to enter legally
and to get lawful residence in the country of first asylum that is involved, and the asylum
seeker’s personal integrity and safety must be protected there. This concept of protection
also includes a certain social and economic element, but does not extend beyond the
provision of basic living conditions. 7 However, it cannot be required that the asylum
seekers concerned will have completely the same social living standards as the country’s
own nationals. The core of the protection concept is that the persons must enjoy personal
safety both when they enter and when they stay in the country of first asylum.
4.6
As to the author’s allegations to the effect that, if returned to Italy, she and her two
children would risk having to live in the streets without access to accommodation and to
medical care, the State party refers to the European Court of Human Rights admissibility
decision of 2 April 2013 in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and
Italy, in which the court noted that a person granted subsidiary protection would be
provided with a residence permit with a validity of three years which could be renewed by
the territorial commission that had granted it; that this permit could further be converted
into a residence permit for the purposes of work in Italy, provided that this was requested
before the expiry of the validity of the residence permit and provided that the person
concerned held an identity document; and that a residence permit granted for subsidiary
protection entitled the person concerned, inter alia, to a travel document for aliens, to work
and to family reunion, and to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance, health
care, social housing and education under Italian domestic law.
4.7
The author was granted subsidiary protection in Italy until 19 October 2012. The
State party submits that there is no basis for assuming that her permit will not be renewed.
The State party also notes that the author has mainly referred to reports and other
background material concerning reception conditions in Italy that are relevant only to
asylum seekers, including Dublin II Regulation returnees to Italy, and not to persons, such
as the author, who have already been granted subsidiary protection in Italy. The State party
6
7
4
At the time of the decisions of the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board, the
author’s child M.M. was still a minor (born on 16 September 1996). She was 18 when the
communication was submitted to the Committee in December 2014.
The State party notes that the assessment includes, inter alia, Parts II to V of the Geneva Convention,
and Executive Committee conclusion No. 58 (1989).