CCPR/C/121/D/2585/2015 to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living.35 Moreover, the Court indicated that in the absence of exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds against removal, the fact that the applicant’s material and social living conditions would be significantly reduced if he or she were to be removed from the contracting State is not sufficient in itself to give rise to a breach of article 3. 36 Furthermore, the State party considers that it cannot be inferred from the judgment of the Court in Tarakhel v. Switzerland that individual guarantees must be obtained from the Bulgarian authorities in the case at hand, as it concerns the transfer of a family which has been granted subsidiary protection in Bulgaria, while in Tarakhel the authors’ application for asylum in Italy was still pending when the case was reviewed by the Court. 4.12 The State party therefore submits that when rendering its decision, the Refugee Appeals Board took into account all relevant information and that the communication has not brought to light any new, specific information about the authors’ situation. It recalls the Committee’s established jurisprudence,37 according to which important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In the present case, the authors are trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of their claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. There is no basis to challenge the assessment made by the Board, according to which the authors have failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if deported to Bulgaria. Against this background, the State party submits that the deportation of the authors to Bulgaria would not constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In their comments of 25 November 2015, the authors maintained that their deportation to Bulgaria would constitute a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. They consider that their allegations are duly substantiated and assert that they would face inhuman and degrading treatment by being forced to live on the streets with no access to housing, food or sanitary facilities and no prospect of finding durable humanitarian solutions. 5.2 The authors consider that Bulgaria cannot serve as their first country of asylum. They argue that certain conditions are necessary to become a first country of asylum: the authors should be protected against refoulement; they should be able to travel and stay lawfully in the country; and their personal integrity should be protected. They submit that the concept of protection includes a social and a financial element and that their basic rights must be protected. The authors refer to chapters II−V of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and to UNHCR conclusion No. 58 (XL), in which it is emphasized that before returning asylum seekers or refugees to a country where they obtained protection, it must be ensured that they will be “treated in accordance with recognized basic human standards” in that country (para. (f) (ii)). They submit that, as a minimum, refugees must be offered housing and access to paid work or an allocation until they find a job. The authors further state that according to the most recent background information regarding refugees with temporary residence documents in Bulgaria, they would not enjoy the necessary protection there. 5.3 The authors indicate that the State party did not contest that they had stayed at a detention centre for approximately 23 days and that subsequently they were transferred to an asylum centre where they stayed for approximately three months, and where the conditions were appalling. They reiterate that when they left the reception centre, they were not given any instructions as to where to go or how to get accommodation or food; they 35 36 37 Ibid., para. 70. Ibid., para. 71. See communications No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3; No. 2186/2012, Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5; and No. 2329/2014, Z. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 15 July 2015, para. 7.4. 9