CCPR/C/123/D/2768/2016 a so-called non-litigation procedure.34 It therefore established the facts based on the content of the case file in the administrative proceedings.35 Under section 53 (4) of the Asylum Act, the court shall deliver its decision on requests for judicial review based on the available documents in a non-litigation procedure and within eight days from receipt of the request for an appeal. The review of the court shall cover all the facts and legal aspects as known on the date of the decision. Personal hearings may take place, if deemed necessary, even without the request of the person concerned. In such cases, the decision as to whether a personal hearing should take place falls within the discretion of the judge. Even though the court did not deem it necessary to hear the author, the decision reached in the judicial review proceedings was based on the author’s personal testimony submitted in the asylum procedure. 4.15 In the interest of providing protection for asylum seekers and to ensure respect for the principle of non-refoulement, section 51/A of the Asylum Act provides that if the safe country of origin or the safe third country refuse to take back the applicant, the asylum authority withdraws its decision and continues the procedure. 4.16 For all these reasons, the State party considers that the articles of the Covenant invoked by the author in the present communication have not been violated. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In her comments of 23 March 2017, the author maintains that the minutes of her interview with the Office of Immigration and Nationality were not read back to her and she was not informed of the statement to the effect that they had been read back. She signed the minutes without being aware of their exact content. 5.2 Regarding the State party’s argument that she did not report any communication problems with the interpreter during the interview, mistakes in the minutes, even if unintended, are not always connected to miscommunication with the interpreter, but may occur during the translation of the asylum seeker’s statements, or when the case officer is typing up the translation. That is the reason for the existence of a procedural safeguard in article 17 (3) of the recast so-called asylum procedures Directive of the European Union, according to which member States shall ensure that the applicant has the opportunity to make comments and/or provide clarification orally and/or in writing with regard to any mistranslations or misconceptions appearing in the report or in the transcript, at the end of the personal interview or within a specified time limit before the determining authority takes a decision.36 5.3 The author submitted the corrections to the minutes to the Office of Immigration and Nationality office in the Bicske refugee camp on 13 April 2016, that is only two days after the interview. It is thus not her fault that the Office of Immigration and Nationality department in Budapest, which delivered the decision on 15 April 2016, did not receive the document on time. Minutes have the status of documentary evidence, and should have been taken into account by the Office of Immigration and Nationality. 5.4 Serbia cannot be considered as a safe third country for her owing to the violations she faced there. It is not enough to point to the existence of an asylum law, relevant ratified treaties and candidate status for European Union accession in order for a country to be considered safe for an asylum seeker, but “the general situation in another country, including the ability of its public authorities to provide protection, has to be established proprio motu by the competent domestic immigration authorities”, 37 especially “when 34 35 36 37 10 In accordance with sections 53 (4) and 45 (7) of the Asylum Act and Act III of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure, which were applied under section 4 of Act XVII of 2005 on Non-Contentious Administrative Proceedings and under the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure. According to section 1 (2) of the Act on Non-Contentious Administrative Proceedings, only documentary evidence shall serve as a basis for decisions in non-litigation administrative proceedings. Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Court of Human Rights, J.K. and Others v. Sweden, Case No. 59166/12, Judgment, 23 August 2016, para. 98.