CCPR/C/123/D/2768/2016 modifications on the regulation of member States’ legislative activity allow member States to decide on the list of safe third countries on an individual basis. According to section 3 (2) of government decree No. 191/2015 (VII.21), when a person requesting asylum, prior to arrival to the territory of Hungary, stayed or transited through a country which is on the list of the European Union of safe third countries, he or she may prove during the asylum procedure that he or she did not have any access to effective protection in that country, in line with section 2 (i) of the Asylum Act. In accordance with section 51 (11) of the Act, a person making such a statement may provide justification, immediately or not later than three days later, as to why a given country will not qualify as a safe country of origin or third country in the case in question. 4.10 During the asylum hearing, the author was informed that Serbia was considered a safe third country and that she was obliged to rebut that presumption within three days, as provided in the above-mentioned law. The author confirmed her understanding of the information given, but failed to make any statements in that regard, except for the untimely submission during the judicial proceedings. When deciding on the issue of inadmissibility, the authority may only consider whether the applicant resided in or travelled through the territory of a safe third country and whether he or she had a real chance of requesting effective protection in that specific country. Additionally, having regard to article 3.1 (b) of the readmission agreement between the European Community and Serbia, promulgated in decision No. 2007/819/EC of the Council of the European Union, the Hungarian asylum authority had no reason to assume that Serbia, as a candidate country for European Union accession, would not respect its obligations under an international treaty concluded with the European Union. Consequently, it has reasonably been established that in the author’s case, Serbia qualifies as a safe third country which could approve her asylum request. 4.11 With respect to the allegations of chain deportation to Macedonia and Greece, significant developments have taken place in the Greek asylum system. Over the last five years, Greece has received significant amounts of financial and technical assistance from European Union funds for the development of its asylum system and for processing the backlog of cases. 33 Since October 2015, within the framework of the Greek “hotspot operation plan”, the European Asylum Support Office has also deployed 136 experts from member States to Greece in order to support the Greek refugee service in the following areas: flow of information, registration, processing Dublin cases and in the area of identification of false documents. Recently, the European Union has allocated considerable amounts for improving the situation of asylum seekers in Greece, and there have been serious developments, in particular in housing conditions and capacities. Greece has also implemented the European Union acquis, which contains the elements of the common European asylum system, it has designed an asylum system (refugee service) and established an independent judicial review body. 4.12 As to the author’s vulnerability, the author did not reveal that she was in need of assistance because of any physical or mental problems, either to the administrators of the asylum authority or to the social workers at the reception centre, even though she had the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the author’s statements to the Office of Immigration and Nationality contained inconsistencies, thereby casting doubt on her credibility. 4.13 Regarding the alleged violation of articles 13 and 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the author failed to avail herself of the opportunity to rebut the presumption of Serbia qualifying as safe third country, despite the fact that she had been informed about that legal requirement in a timely manner. Such statements were only revealed during the court proceedings. The Office of Immigration and Nationality has fulfilled its obligation to provide effective remedies, given that both the author’s request for judicial review and her subsequent submissions were forwarded to the court on the first working day following receipt of the document. 4.14 Regarding the author’s claim that the judge decided her case without taking into account her counsel’s submissions, the court revised the decision of the asylum authority in 33 The State party refers to the support allocated by the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, as well as emergency aid. 9