CCPR/C/121/D/2585/2015 subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if deported to Bulgaria. It therefore considers that the communication is manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.3 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the authors have failed to establish that their return to Bulgaria would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. It refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which States parties are under an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, whether in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 23 The State party indicates that its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant are reflected in section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, according to which a residence permit will be issued to an alien if he or she risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to his or her country of origin. 4.4 The State party indicates that the authors have not provided any new information to the Committee that has not already been reviewed by the Refugee Appeals Board. The State party recalls that the Board considered that the authors fell within section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act but, as they had been granted refugee status there, Bulgaria would serve as their first country of asylum. The State party further indicates that the Board requires as an absolute minimum that the asylum seeker or refugee be protected against refoulement. It also must be possible for him/her to enter lawfully and to take up lawful residence in the first country of asylum, and his/her personal integrity and safety must be protected. That concept of protection also includes a certain social and economic element, since asylum seekers must be treated in accordance with basic human standards. However, it cannot be required that the relevant asylum seekers will have exactly the same social living standards as the country’s own nationals. The core of the protection concept is that the persons must enjoy personal safety, both when they enter and when they stay in the first country of asylum. 4.5 Furthermore, the State party recalls that the Board, based on the authors’ long statements about their stay and living conditions in Bulgaria, on the available background material and on the applicable international case law, considered that the authors did not risk refoulement in Bulgaria and that their personal safety would be protected to the extent necessary there, and that the financial and social circumstances would be adequate. The Board took into account a report published by UNHCR in December 2013, 24 and considered that the socioeconomic conditions in Bulgaria were sufficient to enable the authors to obtain the necessary help and support and that they would enjoy the same rights as Bulgarian nationals. The Board further indicated that even though the socioeconomic conditions in Bulgaria were difficult, they were not of such a nature that Bulgaria could not serve as first country of asylum. 4.6 Regarding the authors’ claim that no integration programme is functioning in Bulgaria, the State party indicates that on 25 June 2014, the Bulgarian authorities published a new integration programme, scheduled to be implemented as of 2015, which would cover a larger number of persons, including language training for a greater number of beneficiaries than the previous programme. 25 The State party highlights that Bulgarian authorities have identified eight areas of priority for the 2014 National Action Plan for Integration of Refugees, including access to training, employment, health care, housing and assistance to persons with special needs and unaccompanied minors. 26 The State party adds 23 24 25 26 See communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2. Refugee Integration and the Use of Indicators. Hristova, Trapped in Europe’s Quagmire, pp. 24 and 25. Zvezda Vankova, Monitoring Report on the Integration of Beneficiaries of International Protection in the Republic of Bulgaria in 2014 (Bulgarian Council on Refugees and Migrants, 2014), available from www.bcrm-bg.org/docs/monitoring_integration%20refugees_2014-EN.docx. 7