CAT/C/62/D/721/2015 Folter’)”29 and “In prison, it was horrible and unhygienic. It was very dirty. We were only fed once a day. The food was so bad that even a donkey wouldn’t touch it. We all had lice.”30 The complainant thus did signal both the torture and the inhuman and degrading conditions he had experienced while in detention in Bulgaria. The Swiss authorities did not trouble themselves to ask him for details of the allegations of torture or of the inhuman detention conditions; indeed, they did not ask him a single question on the matter during the entire asylum procedure. The fact that there are not more details or information on file cannot therefore be attributed to the complainant but rather to the State party authorities’ manifest failure to investigate. This failure violates the obligation to conduct an effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to expel or remove. Logically, the fact that a complainant has already been subjected to acts of torture in the destination State is pertinent when it comes to analysing the risk of a future violation of the prohibition. The State party should have investigated that aspect of the case in order to be able to assess correctly the risk entailed by the complainant’s removal. 5.12 With regard to the living conditions of vulnerable asylum seekers in Bulgaria, persons transferred there under the Dublin Regulation may not have access to housing, food or medical care. Given the lack of financial resources, the institutions have shortcomings. This situation is particularly worrying for vulnerable asylum seekers like the complainant. Concerning the State party’s argument that Bulgaria is “a State governed by the rule of law with an operational police authority that is willing and able to offer adequate protection against assaults committed by third parties”, it should be recalled that numerous NGO and United Nations reports as well as press articles have attested to violence on the part of the police, border guards, prison staff and members of the public against persons seeking protection in Bulgaria. Furthermore, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, stated that Bulgaria was promoting intolerance. In December 2015, Amnesty International invited the Government of Bulgaria to investigate complaints by refugees and migrants of ill-treatment, violence and blackmail to which they had been subjected by the police. The State party is wrong to conclude that the complainant is not a vulnerable person and that it will be possible to meet his needs in Bulgaria. According to a judgment of the Stuttgart administrative court of 15 June 2015, access to medical care in Bulgaria is inadequate. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it should not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party concedes that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.4 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party disputes the admissibility of the complaint in respect of the claim under article 16 of the Convention. It takes note of the State party’s argument that the obligations described in article 3 of the Convention do not encompass situations of ill-treatment envisaged in article 16 of the Convention and that, accordingly, the claim under article 16 is inadmissible ratione materiae, as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee notes the 29 30 GE.18-04727 It cannot be concluded from the information on file that the complainant was tortured during his stay in Bulgaria. The German-language record does not support the claims that he complained to the Swiss authorities of having been subjected to acts of torture in Bulgaria. Annex 1 of the State party’s observations, record of the personal background interview, paras. 1.17.04 and 2.06 (French translation of the German original prepared by counsel). 11