CAT/C/62/D/721/2015 alleged by him; he did not claim, however, contrary to the assertion in his communication, that he had endured repeated physical assaults at the hands of the guards. At any event, given that the complainant was released from detention and transferred to an asylum seekers’ centre in Sofia (which he reportedly left while his asylum application was still being examined), his fear of being arrested and detained again in the event of his removal to Bulgaria appears unfounded. He has provided no reason to believe that he risks being detained anew in Bulgaria, since he will be admitted there as an asylum seeker transferred under the Dublin III Regulation (his application having not yet been rejected in that country), rather than being an alien who has entered the country clandestinely or is remaining there with no legal status. 4.9 The State party notes that at no stage of the asylum procedure in Switzerland did the complainant refer to any ill-treatment suffered in Bulgaria. 9 Indeed, it is only in the complaint addressed to the Committee that he claims to have been subjected to various abuses on the part of State officials. Furthermore, the State party emphasizes 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. The file contains no evidence suggesting that that would not be the case in the complainant’s specific situation. It would thus be for the complainant to apply to the competent police authorities in Bulgaria if he felt that he was exposed to a specific threat in that country. Likewise, if he considered that he was being treated unfairly or unlawfully by Bulgarian officials, it would be up to him to avail himself of an effective remedy and to make his case to the competent judicial authorities. In addition, the State party asserts that the complainant has not shown that his living conditions in Bulgaria would be so difficult or harsh as to constitute treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention or article 16. 4.10 The State party notes that, in a report dated 2 January 2014, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) called on the States parties to the Dublin Regulation to halt temporarily all transfers of asylum seekers to Bulgaria on account of serious deficiencies in both the country’s system for processing asylum applications and the reception conditions for asylum seekers. However, in April 2014, 10 after re-examining the situation, UNHCR, in an updated report, withdrew its call, noting that the reception conditions for asylum seekers in Bulgaria had improved, while drawing the attention of States to the risk of transferring vulnerable persons. The State party observes that UNHCR has not, to date, modified the position set out in its most recent report, just cited. 4.11 Other organizations continue, however, to report that serious difficulties persist in Bulgaria, notably regarding access to asylum procedures and reception conditions for asylum seekers, as well as a lack of measures to facilitate the integration of, and access to medical care for, recognized refugees or persons who have obtained temporary protection. In its October 2015 report, cited above, updating the previous year’s report, in which it had noted considerable improvements in Bulgaria since March 2014, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee observed that the situation had deteriorated, owing mainly to the influx of asylum seekers that several European States were experiencing and by which countries situated at the frontiers of the European Union were particularly affected. The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee also highlighted the inadequate material conditions in Bulgarian reception centres and the difficult conditions of detention in which numerous asylum seekers were being held, including persons returning to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation and families with children. In these circumstances, and even though it cannot be concluded that there are structural failings in Bulgaria, there is a need to be very mindful — depending on the facts of the case at hand — of the warning issued by UNHCR in April 2014 concerning the transfer of vulnerable persons. The State party considers, however, that, in the present case, the complainant, in the light of his personal situation and 9 10 6 See, inter alia, the record of the hearing of 24 August 2015, annex 1, and the appeal to the Federal Administrative Court. UNHCR has not issued any new instructions since April 2014 (Bulgaria as a country of asylum: UNHCR observations on the current situation of asylum in Bulgaria, www.unhcr.org/53198b489.pdf). The Secretariat confirmed this information during a conversation on 10 October 2017 with the UNHCR chief focal point for human rights. GE.18-04727