CCPR/C/125/D/2901/2016 4.9 In response to the author’s claim that he did not have access to an effective remedy, his appeal was unsuccessful due to the lack of information provided by him. This lack of information cannot be attributed to the State. 4.10 The State party reiterates its initial observations concerning the author’s age and the age-determination process. In response to the author’s further comments relating to his departure from Hungary to Austria, the State party also observes that according to the Austrian age-determination document the author refers to, the author indicated his date of birth as 4 July 2000. This means that the author was 16 at the time he requested asylum in Hungary, however he had stated before the Hungarian asylum authority that he was 18. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In comments dated 21 March 2017 and 18 September 2017, the author informs the Committee that he left Hungary for Austria. He maintains that the Hungarian Immigration and Asylum Office withdrew its original decision ordering his removal to Bulgaria almost one month after the Committee granted interim measures. This delay is indicative of bad faith. Moreover, the Office made the decision not to remove the author only after the Committee granted interim measures. The mere fact that the author was not removed – due to the intervention of the Committee – does not mean that the State party did not violate the cited articles of the Covenant, and does not absolve the State party of respecting its obligations under international law. 5.2 The State party should not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of, inter alia, expulsion. The author was able to claim before the State party’s authorities that his return to Bulgaria might have constituted a violation of article 7, and article 2 (3) (a) read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant. However, the Hungarian authorities did not fulfil their obligation to furnish effective guarantees to protect the author from arbitrary removal to Bulgaria. 5.3 The State party did not provide any relevant legal reasoning concerning the author’s claim under article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant. Both the administrative and the judicial procedures were compromised by significant procedural errors, but the State party has not commented on these claims. The judicial review conducted by the Administrative and Labour Court of Győr did not provide an effective remedy. The principle of an effective remedy should apply both to the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation and to the legal and factual situation in the receiving State. The author reiterates his claims regarding the lack of an individual hearing and cites jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the standards of effective review of an expulsion order. 5.4 Regarding the author’s age, the author maintains that the Immigration and Asylum Office did not carry out an age assessment or accept the identity document he proffered. The author was clearly recognizable in the photo he submitted, contrary to the State party’s assertion. Moreover, his age has been assessed by the Austrian authorities and they found him to be a child. The failure of the Hungarian authorities to assess the author’s age, despite his repeated requests, underscores the systematic failure to guarantee his right to an effective remedy. When intercepted by the Hungarian police, and during the early stages of his asylum procedure, the author was a scared, traumatized unaccompanied child. He was far from his home, in a foreign country, and was dealing with a complex and unfamiliar legal procedure. Unaccompanied children cannot be expected to immediately trust authorities, whom they may deeply mistrust as a result of past persecution. In many cases, asylum seekers only narrate their true story when they have learned what their rights are. Once the author learned that he in fact belonged to a vulnerable group, he immediately informed the authorities of the truth. He cannot be blamed for being confused about the safest and best way to initiate and proceed with his asylum case, especially in light of the fact that he suffered from severe post-traumatic stress disorder. 5.5 Since the author’s departure from Hungary, his counsel in Hungary has been in contact with him and with the organization providing him with legal aid in Austria. The author has expressed a wish to see current proceedings before the Committee reach a conclusion, in order to help himself and other asylum seekers. 6