CCPR/C/123/D/2768/2016 information about such a risk is freely ascertainable from a wide number of sources”.38 As to the State party’s statement that once returned to Serbia she could complain to the authorities for the violations she had suffered there, according to the reports she brought to the attention of the Committee, victims of human trafficking and rape are not sufficiently protected in Serbia (see para. 3.10 above). 5.5 The author cites a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary,39 considering that the core problems in her case are identical to the deficiencies revealed by the European Court. The Court found that the applicants’ expulsion to Serbia exposed them to a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, through a chain refoulement to Greece, where they would have faced inhuman and degrading conditions of reception.40 The Court reiterated that according to the official position of UNHCR, Serbia was not a safe country for asylum seekers. The State party cannot simply rely on a safe third country list without taking into account the existing country information. 5.6 In theory, the State party has correctly applied the asylum procedure. However, various problems occurred in the author’s case. Her appeal was decided less than 24 hours after the registration of her appeal by the court (see para. 2.8 above). Such a quick decision can be explained by the fact that the decision adopted in her case literally reproduces other decisions in cases where the Hungarian Helsinki Committee challenged the assumption that Serbia was a safe third country, only the author’s name being changed. Also, even if her counsel sent his submission six days after the author received the negative decision, which was still within the seven-day deadline for appeal, the competent authority did not transmit his submission on time to the court and it therefore could not be taken into account in the judgment. 5.7 Regarding the State party’s statement that she failed to rebut the presumption of Serbia being qualified as safe third country, although she was informed about the possibility of providing further evidence within a three-day deadline from the interview with the Office of Immigration and Nationality, she could not do so because she was held in captivity throughout her stay in Serbia and thus could not gather additional evidence. Her statements on her treatment in Serbia were sufficient evidence that Serbia was not a safe country for her,41 but these facts were not even mentioned in the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality, nor were they considered by the court. The Hungarian authorities did not therefore examine with due diligence whether she indeed had a real chance to request effective protection. 5.8 As to the State party’s allegation that she did not reveal her need for assistance based on physical and mental problems, her statement during the interview with the Office of Immigration and Nationality reflected the fact that she was a torture survivor who had undergone severe trauma, therefore falling within the category of especially vulnerable persons under section 2 (k) of the Asylum Act and article 21 of the Directive on reception 38 39 40 41 European Court of Human Rights, F.G. v. Sweden, Case No. 43611/11, Judgment, 23 March 2016, para. 126. European Court of Human Rights, Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, Case No. 47287/15, Judgment, 14 March 2017. However, the case has been referred and is pending before the Grand Chamber. The author also refers to paragraph 120 of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, according to which “[t]he Court observes that between January 2013 and July 2015 Serbia was not considered a safe third country by Hungary … This was so in accordance with reports of international institutions on the shortcomings of asylum proceedings in Serbia … However, the 2015 legislative change produced an abrupt change in the Hungarian stance on Serbia from the perspective of asylum proceedings … The altered position of the Hungarian authorities in this matter begs the question whether it reflects a substantive improvement of the guarantees afforded to asylum-seekers in Serbia. However, no convincing explanation or reasons have been adduced by the Government for this reversal of attitude, especially in light of the reservations of the UNHCR and respected international human rights organisations expressed as late as December 2016 …”. The author refers to the European Court’s judgment in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, para. 366, according to which once an applicant presents an arguable claim that he or she might be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and when information about such a risk is freely ascertainable from a wide number of sources, the burden of proof shifts to the authorities. 11