CCPR/C/121/D/2585/2015 harassed and threatened by unknown private persons and that the authors and their children suffer from anxiety due to their experience there. The Committee further notes the authors’ claim that they left Bulgaria and went to Denmark out of fear for their safety and due to the harsh living conditions in Bulgaria. 8.8 The Committee further notes the authors’ allegation that as they were granted refugee status, they would, upon their return, be excluded from the reception facilities which they already benefited from when they first arrived in Bulgaria and that they would not have access to social housing or temporary shelters. The Committee notes the authors’ arguments that: (a) they would face a precarious socioeconomic situation, given the lack of access to financial help or social assistance and to integration programmes for refugees; (b) that they would not be able to access employment; (c) that they would not be able to find accommodation because of their lack of resources and incomes; and (d) that they would therefore face homelessness and be forced to live with their children on the streets. 8.9 The Committee also takes note of the various reports submitted by the authors highlighting the lack of a functional integration programme for refugees in Bulgaria and the serious practical difficulties they face in gaining access to housing, work and social benefits, including health care and education. The Committee further notes the background material, according to which sufficient places in reception facilities for asylum seekers and returnees under the Dublin Regulation are lacking and are often in poor sanitary condition. It observes that returnees like the authors, who have already been granted a form of protection and benefited from reception facilities in Bulgaria, are not entitled to accommodation in the asylum camps beyond the six-month period after protection status has been granted, and that although beneficiaries of protection are entitled to work and enjoy social rights in Bulgaria, its social system is in general insufficient to meet the needs of all persons requiring assistance, in particular in its current socioeconomic situation. 47 8.10 However, the Committee notes the State party’s statement that, by law, persons granted refugee and protection status in Bulgaria have the same rights of access to several important social services on the same terms as Bulgarian nationals, and that although difficulties are encountered in the implementation of such rights, Bulgaria has been taking steps aimed at improving its refugee integration policies. It also notes the State party’s argument according to which the authors did not request assistance during their stay in Bulgaria with respect to accommodation and employment. Regarding the authors’ allegations that they did not receive any medical assistance, the Committee notes the information submitted by the State party according to which refugees have access to healthcare services on the same terms as Bulgarian nationals and that the medical treatment is free if they register with a general practitioner for a nominal sum. The Committee observes that the authors have not submitted any evidence or explanation of whether they have registered with a general practitioner, and that they have not claimed before the Danish immigration authorities that their health situation should bar their deportation. 8.11 Regarding the authors’ allegations of xenophobic violence, the Committee takes note of the State party’s submission, based on the determination of the Refugee Appeals Board that after leaving the reception centre the authors did not experience any aggressive treatment from the Bulgarian authorities and did not seek protection from the authorities against the private act of racism that M.A.S. experienced. The Committee further notes that the authors did not lodge a complaint with the Bulgarian authorities in respect of their allegations of ill-treatment during arrest and while in prison. The Committee therefore considers that although the authors may not have placed trust in the Bulgarian authorities, they have not demonstrated that these authorities are not able and willing to provide appropriate protection in their case. 8.12 The Committee observes that, notwithstanding the fact that it is difficult in practice for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to have access to the labour market or to housing, the authors have failed to substantiate a real and personal risk upon return to Bulgaria. In this connection, the authors have not established that they were homeless 51 14 See, for example, UNHCR Observations on the Current Situation of Asylum in Bulgaria, p. 12; Hristova, Trapped in Europe’s Quagmire; and the report of the Danish Refugee Council.