CCPR/C/127/D/2956/2017 on the grounds that he had failed to refute the presumption that he could be safely transferred to another State member of the European Union. The State party reiterates that several independent Austrian courts had thoroughly and carefully examined the authors’ claims but could not determine a real risk of a human rights violation. The State party repeats that the communication should be found inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and for insufficient substantiation. Authors’ additional submission 8.1 In their additional comments of 31 August 2018, the authors contest the State party’s argument that they had not exhausted domestic remedies. They submit that, while the State party refers to the possibility of appeal before the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, the only remedy available to them at the time of the submission of the present communication was the pending appeal before the Federal Administrative Court. As that appeal had not been granted suspensive effect, the authors were under constant threat of deportation without any further assessment of whether their removal could result in a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The authors were indeed removed to Bulgaria on 16 March 2017. At the time of the submission they therefore had no remedy available that could have prevented their removal to Bulgaria. The authors recall that the Committee found the communication relative to the case Simalae Toala et al. v. New Zealand admissible because it was not apparent to the Committee that any remedies that might still be available to the authors would be effective to prevent their deportation. 22 The authors underscore that the Committee has made clear on numerous occasions, including in country reports, that effective remedies against expulsion must have suspensive effect, 23 and that the Committee against Torture 24 and the European Court of Human Rights 25 have expressed similar views. 8.2 The authors submit that, with the decision of 20 February 2018 by the Supreme Administrative Court, the authors have now exhausted the available domestic remedies. The authors argue that, in another case of a family with minor children, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the appellate court in question had failed to assess the real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment that the appellants would face as a vulnerable family upon their removal to Bulgaria. The authors claim that there is no discernible reason why the Supreme Administrative Court ruled differently in their case only months later. 8.3 The authors state that, after the father suffered a severe knee fracture and initially did not receive treatment in Bulgaria, he is still, while now in Iraq, in pain and having difficulties walking. He has been diagnosed with an early stage of bladder cancer. A doctor in Iraq has informed him that the percentage of successful treatment is low and the costs are high. The mother is still suffering from severe depression due to her experiences during their journey from Iraq to Turkey, Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria. She has had a miscarriage, which she attributes to depression, hunger and psychological effects. She is receiving psychological treatment in Iraq. Four of the five children, including the youngest child, suffer from thalassaemia. The youngest daughter misses her classmates and friends in Austria and is isolating herself from the community in which they live in Iraq. The three children of school age do not have access to education because they missed the enrolment deadline but will be able to enrol next year. The authors claim that their current situation shows their ordeal since the State party removed them to Bulgaria and its detrimental effect on all of the authors’ physical and psychological health. 8.4 As for their financial situation, the authors state that they currently rely on the help of relatives and friends. There are no jobs that would suit the father’s current physical condition. The authors are not receiving any government support. 22 23 24 25 10 Simalae Toala et al. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/70/D/675/1995), para. 6.4. See, for example, the Committee’s concluding observations on Lithuania (CCPR/CO/80/LTU, para. 7) and Uzbekistan (CCPR/CO/83/UZB, para. 12). Committee against Torture, Arkauz Arana v. France (CAT/C/23/D/63/1997). European Court of Human Rights, Sultani v. France (application No. 45223/05), judgment of 20 September 2007.