CCPR/C/125/D/2901/2016 the author’s transfer to Bulgaria would cause irreparable damage, by seriously compromising his fragile mental state and his recovery since beginning therapy in Hungary. Reports indicate that Bulgarian authorities routinely detain asylum seekers without considering the individual circumstances of their cases.3 3.2 Bulgaria does not allow asylum seekers access to mental health services, as such access is limited to holders of a residence permit. 4 Furthermore, Bulgaria does not have a procedure to identify vulnerable asylum seekers. Given the author’s diagnosis of severe post-traumatic stress disorder, his inability to access mental health services in Bulgaria would seriously damage his health. Belgium recently suspended returns to Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation, on the grounds that there were no assurances that Dublin III returnees would have access to an asylum procedure and would not face extremely difficult reception conditions during the examination of their claims. 5 In Bulgaria, no guidelines or practices exist to accommodate the specific needs of minor asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children. 3.3 Several reports indicate that the Bulgarian authorities treat asylum seekers with excessive force and brutality,6 including inside reception facilities. Moreover, growing farright tendencies are fuelling anti-refugee sentiment and leading to violence in the country. 3.4 The author also claims that the State party violated his rights under article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant, in that neither the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality to return him to Bulgaria nor the judicial review of that decision by the Administrative and Labour Court of Győr provided him with effective remedies. The author had only one hearing during his asylum proceedings, and was not questioned at that time about the individual circumstances relating to his potential transfer to Bulgaria. This violated his right to be heard. The arguments provided by the authorities were purely legalistic and did not demonstrate an individualized examination of his case. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its initial observations dated 7 February 2017, the State party considers that the communication is manifestly ill-founded and is thus inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, because the relevant circumstances have ceased to exist. The State party refers to the decision of the Immigration and Asylum Office of 2 January 2017, in which the Office withdrew its previous decision stating that Bulgaria was responsible for the author’s asylum case. Accordingly, the author will not be deported to Bulgaria, as the author has confirmed. The author has also left his assigned accommodation in Hungary, and his whereabouts are unknown. According to article 66 (2) of the law on asylum, if an asylum applicant leaves a designated place of accommodation without permission for more than 48 hours for an unknown destination, and fails to submit an appropriate explanation for the absence, the asylum authorities shall render a decision on the basis of the information available, or shall terminate the procedure. In compliance with these provisions, the asylum authority conducted the procedure and, in a decision dated 20 January 2017, rejected the author’s request for international protection. 4.2 In addition, the author’s claims are manifestly ill-founded. When the author was apprehended by Hungarian police, he had no identity documents. At his police hearing, which was conducted in Urdu, he stated that his date of birth was 1 January 1998. He accepted the Urdu interpretation provided, stating that he understood the interpreter. The author signed each page of the written transcript of the hearing after it had been translated. During questioning by the police, the author did not request correction of his personal data, 3 4 5 6 4 Ibid. The author cites, inter alia, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, “Reception and detention conditions of applicants for international protection in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU”, January 2015. The author cites the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and 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. The author cites, inter alia, Pro Asyl, “Humiliated, ill-treated, and without protection: refugees and asylum seekers in Bulgaria”, December 2015.