CAT/C/62/D/721/2015 under article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in each case.34 7.5 The complainant states that, in Bulgaria, he would not have access to asylum procedures and that he could be detained, ill-treated or tortured and subjected to refoulement to Afghanistan or transfer to Turkey. The Committee notes the complainant’s assertion that he had problems with the guards in the detention centres in Bulgaria. The Committee further notes that the complainant’s detention occurred when he was picked up by the police while in an irregular situation and before he had filed his application for asylum in Bulgaria. The Committee notes that the complainant himself affirms that he did not apply for asylum upon entering Bulgaria and that, consequently, it is likely that he was detained because he could be considered an illegal migrant. The Committee also notes that, after the authorities had registered his asylum application, he was released and transferred to housing for asylum seekers in Sofia. The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the complainant left Bulgaria, without waiting for a decision on his asylum application, because, according to him, Afghans were generally not welcome there and could not find work. He travelled through Hungary (where he filed asylum applications on 6 and 27 May 2015), Austria (where he also applied for asylum, on 2 August 2015) and Italy, before reaching Switzerland. 7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his right to an effective remedy was violated because the State party did not respect its obligation to conduct an effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to remove him. The Committee notes that, according to the State party’s observations, the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court did not dispute, in their decisions, the fact of the complainant’s detention or the insalubrious conditions alleged by him, but that he did not claim, contrary to the assertion in his communication, to have endured repeated physical assaults at the hands of the guards. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument 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. The Committee notes the complainant’s assertion 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 Committee notes, however, that the complainant learned this through contacts he reportedly had with the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and that no pertinent document has been presented in support of the assertion. The Bulgarian authorities have expressly agreed to take back the complainant pursuant to article 18 (1) (b) of the Dublin III Regulation and, in so doing, have acknowledged that a procedure is under way in Bulgaria and have recognized their competence to process the asylum application. The Committee further notes that the complainant has not provided any details concerning his claims of torture. 7.7 The Committee notes the complainant’s assertion that, owing to the ill-treatment to which he was subjected while detained in Bulgaria, he is suffering from severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and that, consequently, he is an exceptionally vulnerable person. The Committee further notes that, according to the State party, in view of the medical report produced, no very exceptional circumstances obtain in the present case and the state of health of the complainant does not constitute an obstacle under the Convention to his removal to Bulgaria. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant, in the light of his personal situation and notwithstanding his medical problems, is not especially vulnerable and that it will be possible to meet his specific needs after his return to Bulgaria. 7.8 The Committee recalls that it must ascertain whether the complainant would currently run a risk of being subjected to torture in the event of removal to Bulgaria. 35 It notes that the complainant has had the opportunity to provide supporting evidence and more details about his claims, at the national level, to the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, but that the evidence provided was not such as to allow the 34 35 GE.18-04727 See general comment No. 1, para. 9; T.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/46/D/375/2009), para. 8.7; and Alp v. Denmark (CAT/C/52/D/466/2011), para. 8.3. See, for example, G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7. 13