CCPR/C/123/D/2768/2016 not in a position to consider it. Nevertheless, the documents were attached to the case file for consideration by the competent court when it was forwarded for judicial review by the refugee authority. 4.3 Section 93 (2) the Asylum Act provides that the Government shall be entitled to define the list of safe countries of origin and safe third countries in a governmental decree. According to section 2 of government decree No. 191/2015 (VII.21), candidate countries for European Union accession, including Serbia, belong to the group of safe third countries. 4.4 Regarding the author’s appeal against the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality, the request for appeal was received by the asylum authority on 25 April 2016. Based on section 53 (3) of the Asylum Act, the Office of Immigration and Nationality immediately forwarded the request and the counter motion to the competent court for judicial review. The authority sent the case to the court on 28 April 2016. The preliminary submission of the author’s legal representative was received by the Office of Immigration and Nationality on 29 April 2016 and, upon registration, was handed over to the administrator of the case on the same day. Owing to the short deadline available for the court proceedings, the document was registered and filed with the court on the next working day. That means that on 2 May 2016, the Office of Immigration and Nationality had forwarded the documents to the court. Given the volume of the preliminary documentation, the asylum authority forwarded the asylum application to the municipal administrative court and the labour court by post. Based on section 53 (3) of the Asylum Act, any requests for review must be filed with the asylum authorities, whereas supplementary information to an application shall be submitted directly to the court in accordance with section 93 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The failure of the author’s legal representative may therefore not be attributed to the Office of Immigration and Nationality, as alleged by the author. 4.5 Referring to the final court decision, the alleged atrocities committed by human traffickers and suffered by the author are not relevant as to the decision taken by the asylum authority. The sole fact that the author did not turn to the Serbian authorities concerning the alleged criminal offences or that she failed to file a request for asylum does not mean that the Serbian authorities could not have provided her with protection against her persecution or the serious harm she had allegedly suffered. 4.6 As to the author’s reference to the case of Budina v. Russia decided by the European Court, according to which any indifference or inaction on the part of the authorities may constitute inhuman and degrading treatment, those findings cannot be applied in the present communication, because the asylum authority had indeed conducted the proceedings and delivered its decision on the inadmissibility of the application on legal grounds. 4.7 With respect to the author’s statement that her asylum application was not examined on the merits, the authority was not in a position to examine the merits as to whether the author had indeed been exposed to persecution or serious harm in her country of origin. At that stage of the procedure, the authority could only determine which member State was responsible for the examination of the asylum request. 4.8 Serbia is governed by the rule of law, has ratified several human rights treaties and has an asylum law based on the principle of non-refoulement. That act ensures that persons in situations similar or identical to the author’s case will be recognized as refugees or receive temporary protection in Serbia. The author therefore had a real opportunity to submit a request for international protection in Serbia. However, she did not avail herself of that opportunity and still refuses to do so. Besides, according to the information available on Serbia, the institutional framework for the submission and consideration of asylum requests is assured. In addition, Serbia is a candidate country for European Union accession and in that context, it has officially stated that it accepts freedom, security and justice as part of the acquis of the European Union (as of 1 January 2016), including the part that guarantees high standards of international protection and constitutes the elements of the common European asylum system. 4.9 In relation to the author’s reference to the official position of UNHCR and the European Commission in respect of Serbia, Opinion No. 1/2016 (21 March) of the Curia (the Supreme Court of Hungary) proclaims that the relevant European Union laws and their 8