CCPR/C/127/D/2956/2017 10.4 Nonetheless, the Committee considers that, in cases where a remedy said to be available to the victim cannot shield that person from an event that the victim is seeking to prevent and that is alleged to result in irreparable harm, such a remedy is by definition ineffective. In the present case, the authors lodged on 25 January 2017 an appeal before the Federal Administrative Court, which did not grant suspensive effect to their application and later dismissed the appeal as unfounded on 8 March 2017. The father appealed against the decision of the Federal Administrative Court but the Supreme Administrative Court rejected that appeal on 20 February 2018. The authors were in the meantime removed to Bulgaria on 16 March 2017. On 26 April 2017, the authors lodged an appeal before the Constitutional Court, which granted suspensive effect to the appeal. However, the authors were not readmitted into Austria pending the decision of the Constitutional Court, which was delivered only on 21 September 2017, finally rejecting the authors’ appeal. The Committee is thus not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 10.5 The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation. The Committee notes, with regard to the authors’ claim under article 7 of the Covenant, that the State party submits that the Austrian authorities examined the authors’ asylum applications carefully and comprehensively, including their submissions, personal circumstances, health conditions and the situation in Bulgaria at the time, and concluded that their removal did not carry a risk that their human rights would be violated. The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that Bulgaria has undertaken to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Reception Conditions Directive and other regional and international human rights instruments. The Committee further notes the State party’s contention that UNHCR has lifted its recommendation not to carry out transfers to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation. 10.6 The Committee notes that the authors argue that, during their first stay in Bulgaria, the police threatened them with weapons, they received inadequate nutrition, the mother did not obtain treatment for her post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, they were forced to apply for asylum and they were made to sleep on the floor, which the father was forced to clean. The Committee notes that the authors also refer to a number of reports detailing the state of asylum procedures and reception conditions in Bulgaria. 10.7 As for the authors’ claim that the Bulgarian authorities threatened them with weapons, the Committee notes that the authors have not provided more information to substantiate how that contributes to their claim that their removal to Bulgaria would amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee further notes that, while the authors contend that the mother and the children did not receive medical treatment in Bulgaria, they do not describe whether they took any steps to obtain access to such care. As for the authors’ submissions concerning their second stay in Bulgaria and their current plight in Iraq, the Committee will, in principle, not consider events following a removal where it is alleged that the removal constituted a violation of the Covenant at that point in time, unless those events shed light on the situation prevailing at the relevant time. In the light of the submissions on all of the authors’ circumstances in Bulgaria, and noting that while reception conditions in Bulgaria at the time of the authors’ removal were subject to concerns, UNHCR had lifted its recommendation not to remove asylum seekers to Bulgaria, the Committee considers that the authors’ claims under article 7 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 11. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and the authors of the communication. 12