CCPR/C/121/D/2585/2015 5.7 The authors also refer to the Committee’s Views in Jasin et al. v. Denmark,41 in which it emphasized the need to give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk a person might face if removed. The authors submit that this requires an individualized assessment of the risk faced rather than reliance on general reports and on the assumption that having been granted subsidiary protection in the past, they would in principle be entitled to work and receive social benefits. 5.8 The authors finally submit that as newly recognized refugees, they need further support to be established in a country of asylum, as they do not have cultural or social networks. They submit that special attention must be given to the fact that they have three minor children; that they suffer from severe medical conditions and are dependent on medication; and that they did not receive any help from the Bulgarian authorities during their initial stay in Bulgaria, where they have no possibility to exercise the most basic economic and social rights. They submit that consequently, they may have no choice but to return to the Syrian Arab Republic, rendering illusory their right to non-refoulement under international refugee law. They also claim that regardless of Bulgarian legislation on the formal access to social benefits, health care and education, relevant background information indicates that refugees in Bulgaria risk homelessness and destitution. They further submit that the Refugee Appeals Board has failed to give sufficient weight to the real personal risk they would face if removed there; that it did not take into account that they did not receive any assistance from the Bulgarian authorities; and that the only reason they did not live on the streets was that they had received money from their family. In addition, the Board did not contact the Bulgarian authorities to ensure that they and their children would be received under circumstances that would guarantee the protection of their rights. Additional submission from the State party 6.1 On 27 April 2016, the State party provided further observations to the Committee, generally referring to its observations of 9 September 2015. It reiterates that the authors failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility and that the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. It further reiterates that should the Committee consider the communication admissible, it should be deemed as lacking substantiation, as the authors have failed to establish a violation of their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 6.2 The State party considers that the Committee’s jurisprudence in Jasin et al. v. Denmark is not applicable to the present case because the circumstances are different. While the Jasin case concerned the deportation of a single mother with minor children to Italy whose residence permit for Italy had expired, the present case concerns the deportation of a married couple with minor children to Bulgaria who were in possession of valid residence permits when they applied for asylum. 6.3 The State party also indicates that the Refugee Appeals Board took into account all the information provided by the authors, which was based on their own experiences. Moreover, the background material consulted by the Board is obtained from a wide range of sources, which is compared with the statements made by the relevant asylum seekers, including as to their past experience. The State party observes that in the present case, the authors have had the opportunity to make submissions in writing and orally before the domestic authorities and that the Board has thoroughly examined their case on the basis of those submissions. 6.4 The State party further notes that there is no indication that the authors made any attempt to request help from the Bulgarian authorities; on the contrary, they managed to find private accommodation in Sofia and also managed to support themselves before leaving Bulgaria. Referring to the fact that the authors did not manage to find work during the period of about two months spent in Bulgaria after having been granted residence, the State party considers that this is also not a circumstance that would lead to a different assessment. According to the information provided, the authors did not request assistance from the authorities in this respect either. In addition, it is not reasonable to require that 41 Communication No. 2360/2014, Views adopted on 22 July 2015. 11