CAT/C/62/D/721/2015 to fair asylum procedures. 15 The latest report on Bulgaria from the Asylum Information Database (AIDA) confirms the worsening of the problems affecting the Bulgarian asylum system. 16 In this context, numerous European jurisdictions have suspended removals to Bulgaria, given the substantial risk of ill-treatment to which asylum seekers are exposed there. Such decisions have been taken by the courts in the United Kingdom, Germany, 17 Belgium, 18 Holland 19 and Italy, 20 among others, demonstrating the grave concerns of the European jurisdictions about respect for asylum seekers’ fundamental rights in Bulgaria. The complainant considers that the case law of the European courts reflects a growing consensus around the failings of the Bulgarian asylum system, which are so serious that it is no longer able to guarantee the fundamental rights of asylum seekers. 5.2 The complainant maintains that the State party’s analysis of his claim under article 16 is incorrect. In its general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, the Committee held that article 3 also applied to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as defined in article 16. By clarifying that the prohibition on refoulement also covered ill-treatment, the Committee aligned itself with international case law on the matter, notably that of the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights. 5.3 Irrespective of the alleged risk of ill-treatment in Bulgaria, the complainant maintains that his removal per se would constitute a violation of article 16, given his particular circumstances. He is suffering, inter alia, from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, linked to the ill-treatment to which he was subjected during his detention in Bulgaria. He is currently receiving specialized medical treatment in Switzerland, which would by no means be guaranteed if he were removed to Bulgaria. His removal would thus be particularly traumatizing and would have the effect of impeding in the long term, or even destroying, the possibility of a cure. For these reasons, he argues that his removal would constitute a violation of article 16. 5.4 The complainant notes that, on the one hand, the State party recognizes that there are inherent problems in the Bulgarian asylum system and certain systemic failings, although it does not specify which ones. On the other, it concludes that these problems are not so serious as to hinder access to fair and equitable asylum procedures. The complainant maintains that, in Bulgaria, access to asylum procedures in the event of a Dublin return is granted only in principle. In fact, according to UNHCR, if an asylum procedure has been terminated in absentia, it can be reopened only if there are objective reasons for the asylum seeker’s absence from Bulgaria. If the person who has been transferred is unable to provide such justification to the satisfaction of the Bulgarian authorities, he or she will be deemed to be a migrant in an irregular situation and will be placed in detention with a view to his or her removal, either in Sofia (Busmantsi) or in Lyubimets, near the border with Turkey, where the conditions of detention are seriously inadequate, as attested in numerous reports 15 16 17 18 19 20 8 UNHCR, Bulgaria as a country of asylum, April 2014, p. 17 (www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/unhcr_bulgaria_ april_2014.pdf). AIDA, Bulgaria Country Report, October 2015 (www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/bulgaria). For a summary of the situation, see Overview of the main changes since the previous report update, pp. 11–14. For an analysis of German case law, 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, February 2016 (available from www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/sites/www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/files/aldfiles/ Research%20Note%20-%20Reception%20conditions%2C%20detention%20and%20procedural%20 safeguards%20for%20asylum%20seekers%20and%20content%20of%20international%20protection %20status%20in%20Bulgaria.pdf). See www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/belgium-council-aliens-law-litigation-suspends-dublintransfer-bulgaria. Court of The Hague, 13 May 2016, 16/7663 and 16/7665 (www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/caselaw/netherlands-%E2%80%93-court-hague-13-may-2016-167663-and-167665). See www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/italy-council-state-suspends-dublin-transfers-bulgariaand-hungary. GE.18-04727