CCPR/C/121/D/2585/2015 way of extradition, expulsion or refoulement. They further refer to conclusion No. 58 (XL) adopted by the Executive Committee of the Programme of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in which it is stated that the principle of first country of asylum should only be applied if the applicant is permitted to remain there upon return and is treated in accordance with recognized basic human standards until a durable solution is found.18 3.7 The authors further refer to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which imposes an obligation upon the State planning to deport to investigate for each case the possibility of a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment upon the return of the deported person, even when it is assumed that human rights are usually respected in the receiving country. They refer to the judgment in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, where the Grand Chamber considered that it was the responsibility of the Belgian authorities not merely to assume that the applicant would be treated in conformity with the standards of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) in the first country of asylum — Greece — but, on the contrary, they should have first verified how the Greek authorities applied their legislation on asylum in practice. Had they done this, they would have seen that the risks faced by the applicant were real and individual enough to fall within the scope of article 3 of the European Convention. 19 The authors also cite the ruling in Tarakhel v. Switzerland, in which the Grand Chamber considered that children have “specific needs” and “extreme vulnerability” and that reception facilities for children “must be adapted to their age, to ensure that those conditions do not ‘create … for them a situation of stress and anxiety, with particular traumatic consequences’”.20 3.8 The authors conclude that in the current circumstances of having fled from civil war in the Syrian Arab Republic and the deplorable living conditions of people who are granted refugee status and subsidiary protection in Bulgaria, there is a real risk that they and their children will be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to the best interests of the child should they be returned to Bulgaria. As an extremely vulnerable group, they are at serious and real risk of facing homelessness, destitution as well as limited access to medical care and schooling. Furthermore, the background information indicates that they could face an additional risk of being exposed to unaddressed xenophobic violence. Therefore, they consider that Bulgaria is unsuitable as the family’s first country of asylum. 3.9 The authors claim that they have exhausted all domestic remedies because the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be appealed before the Danish courts. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 9 September 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. It submits that the communication is not substantiated, as the authors have not demonstrated any possible breach of the Covenant if deported to Bulgaria. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board,21 as well as the legislation applying to asylum proceedings. 22 Regarding the admissibility of the communication, the State party indicates that the authors have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under article 7 of the Covenant, in the absence of substantial grounds for believing that they are in danger of being 18 19 20 21 22 6 “Problem of refugees and asylum seekers who move in an irregular manner from a country in which they had already found protection”, 13 October 1989, available from www.unhcr.org/excom/exconc/ 3ae68c4380/problem-refugees-asylum-seekers-move-irregular-manner-country-already-found.html. See application No. 30696/09, judgment of 21 January 2011, para. 359. See application No. 29217/12, judgment of 4 November 2014, para. 119, citing Popov v. France, application Nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, judgment of 19 January 2012, para. 102. See communication No. 2379/2014, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 8 July 2016, paras. 4.1–4.3. The State party refers to sections 7 (1)−(3) and 31 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act.