CCPR/C/123/D/2768/2016 conditions.42 The author contends that it is the duty of the authorities to identify vulnerable asylum seekers,43 not her obligation to inform the Office of Immigration and Nationality that she qualifies as a person in need of special treatment, especially when her vulnerability is so obvious. 5.9 The author also informs the Committee that on 5 December 2016, she was granted refugee status, which rebuts the State party’s assumption that her statements lacked credibility. 5.10 The author contests the State party’s allegation that the Office of Immigration and Nationality forwarded her subsequent submissions to the court on the first working day following receipt of the document. The Office of Immigration and Nationality forwarded the submission only on 2 May 2016, which was not the next working day after it had received her submission on 29 April 2016. Finally, the State party has not advanced any argument demonstrating that the judicial review of her case was indeed effective. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 26 April 2017, the State party stated that a second asylum procedure had been initiated on 27 June 2016 at the author’s request. During her hearing, she had confirmed what she had said during her first interview as regards her route to Hungary, 44 but she had elaborated more on the reasons for her fleeing and had made some corrections with regard to her prior statements. The court decided that the order of the asylum authority should be set aside and the case be remitted to the asylum authority to conduct a new procedure. 45 It further considered that the asylum authority had infringed section 64 (4) of the Asylum Law, which states that on assessment of whether the applicant’s fear of persecution is wellfounded, it is of no relevance whether the applicant possesses racial, religious or political characteristics or a national affiliation that attracts persecution, provided that such a characteristic is attributed to the applicant by the persecutor. Thus, on 1 December 2016, a third asylum proceeding started ex officio on the basis of the above-mentioned court decision, as a result of which the author was granted asylum. 6.2 The author cannot therefore now qualify as a victim of the alleged infringement of her rights under articles 7 and 13 of the Covenant, as she is no longer at risk of being expelled to Serbia. In view thereof, it requests the Committee to reject the complaint as inadmissible. Additional comments from the author 7.1 On 5 June 2017, the author insisted that it was not true that she had applied for asylum in Serbia, as the State party had declared. During her stay in Serbia, she was kept in captivity by human traffickers and did not have any contact with the Serbian authorities. 7.2 The author was granted refugee status only after she herself had submitted a second asylum application. Her application was finally declared admissible and examined on the merits. This was made possible only thanks to the interim measures ordered by the Committee, but did not result from any initiative by the authorities of the State party. 7.3 The fact that she is no longer at risk of being deported to Serbia does not in itself mean that there was no violation of the positive obligation of States to comply with article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant. According to the case law of the European Court, “in the domain of extradition and removal of migrants, eventual loss of victim status under Article 3 of the Convention cannot automatically and retrospectively dispense the State from its obligations under Article 13, in particular where it can be demonstrated that an applicant had an ‘arguable’ claim under Article 3 at a time he or she 42 43 44 45 12 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2014 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast). She invokes article 22 of the recast Directive 2013/33/EU on reception conditions, article 24 of the recast Directive 2013/32/EU on asylum procedures and section 3 (1) of government decree No. 301/2007 (XI.9) on the implementation of Act LXXX of 2007 on asylum. The State party also affirms that the author sought international protection in Serbia. The State party does not give any details as to the dates or authorities that issued those decisions.