CAT/C/62/D/721/2015 by NGOs and international agencies.21 It is clear from the complainant’s contacts with the NGO Bulgarian Helsinki Committee that the asylum procedure he initiated in Bulgaria has been terminated and that the decision to that effect was notified to him in absentia. The complainant maintains that, this being the case, the State party is mistaken in supposing that his asylum claim remains pending and that he is therefore not at risk of being detained. Given the termination of the asylum procedure, it is very likely that the complainant will be treated as an immigrant in an illegal situation immediately upon his return to Bulgaria and throughout the proceedings in his case. 5.5 The complainant also makes reference to the report of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles.22 He maintains that the State party should have carried out a more thorough investigation into his status in Bulgaria so as to be able to evaluate his risk of detention in that country, given that several reports by NGOs, the United Nations and European judicial authorities have strongly criticized the conditions of detention to which asylum seekers are subjected there. The complainant observes that the State party has failed to investigate his case diligently and that its statement of facts is therefore incorrect. The complainant has moreover proved, on the basis of information obtained from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and other sources, notably the European Council on Refugees and Exiles report,23 that he is at risk of being detained anew if transferred to Bulgaria. This being the case, he considers that the State party has violated his right to an effective remedy under articles 3 and 16 of the Convention. 24 5.6 According to the complainant, the Federal Administrative Court did not conduct a proper analysis of the information on the situation in Bulgaria transmitted by him in support of his appeal. The Court was content to base its negative decision on the mere presumption that the European legal order was respected in Bulgaria, without making any reference whatever to factual data to refute the information provided by the complainant, which pointed to fundamental deficiencies in the reception conditions and asylum procedures. The Court concluded that “in the absence of any evidence of the systematic violation of minimum community standards in this regard, Bulgaria’s respect for its obligations with regard to the rights of asylum seekers in its territory can be presumed” and that “in the case before it, the appellant has not demonstrated that the Bulgarian authorities would refuse to examine his application for protection”. The complainant maintains that the Court’s analysis clearly fails to satisfy the Committee’s requirement of “[an] effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to expel or remove” and violates his right to an effective remedy. 5.7 The complainant emphasizes the inhuman and degrading conditions in the centres for asylum seekers, as well as the risk that he will not receive any support at all and will thus be reduced to living on the streets in a state of complete destitution. 25 Even if he is not detained, the complainant, who is suffering from serious mental-health problems, will either face the inhuman and degrading conditions in the reception centres for asylum seekers or else will find himself in a state of complete indigence on the streets, without 21 22 23 24 25 GE.18-04727 See the report prepared by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his visit to Bulgaria from 9 to 11 February 2015 (http://bit.ly/1GHj8EN); see also AIDA, Bulgaria Country Report, pp. 55–57. See European Council on Refugees and Exiles/European Legal Network on Asylum, Research Note: Reception conditions, detention and procedural safeguards for asylum seekers and content of international protection status in Bulgaria. Ibid. The complainant recalls that the Committee has confirmed on several occasions that the right to an effective remedy is inherent in the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment. For example, in the case of Agiza v. Sweden (CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, para. 13.7), the Committee held that “the right to an effective remedy contained in article 3 requires, in this context, an opportunity for effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to expel or remove, once that decision is made, when there is a plausible allegation that article 3 issues arise”. See also A.S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/25/D/149/1999), para. 8.6. See European Council on Refugees and Exiles/European Legal Network on Asylum, Research Note: Reception conditions, detention and procedural safeguards for asylum seekers and content of international protection status in Bulgaria, paras. 30 and 32. 9