CCPR/C/127/D/2956/2017 applications. The Court also noted that Bulgarian security forces ensure the maintenance of public peace, order and security, and that the authors would have the security of returning in cooperation with the public authorities. The Court also noted that the authors had submitted asylum applications in three different States members of the European Union within three months but had not awaited the outcome of the proceedings in either Bulgaria or Hungary. Moreover, the Court found that the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of asylum seekers in Bulgaria could not in and of itself constitute a human rights violation. 4.8 Furthermore, the State party notes 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 State party argues that there is currently no UNHCR recommendation not to carry out transfers to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation. Moreover, a special support plan for Bulgaria was developed by the European Asylum Support Office in December 2014. 4.9 The State party observes that it is unaware of any decision by the European Court of Human Rights to the effect that asylum seekers are treated inadequately in Bulgaria. The State party refers to a case brought against Austria before the Court concerning a Dublin Regulation transfer to Bulgaria. In a case similar to the present one, the applicants were a family with a minor daughter and elderly and sick people. Austria obtained assurances from Bulgaria that the domestic authorities would accommodate the authors in accordance with their family needs and provide them with adequate care. The Court struck the case off its list. 4.10 The State party refers to the Committee’s views in R.A.A. and Z.M. v. Denmark, in which the Committee concluded that the execution of a Dublin Regulation transfer to Bulgaria of a couple with a small child would amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 14 However, the present case differs significantly from R.A.A. and Z.M. v. Denmark in that the latter was filed in 2014, when conditions in the Bulgarian asylum and reception system were much worse than presently, the authors R.A.A. and Z.M. were recognized refugees and particularly vulnerable because they had a baby and the husband suffered from a heart disease requiring urgent medical treatment and Denmark had not examined whether there was a real risk of ill-treatment. 4.11 The State party notes that its authorities take every interim measure request by an international court or treaty body as an opportunity to re-examine the case in question. The authorities undertake medical examinations to determine the ability of applicants to undergo detention and to fly, they continue to monitor health conditions during detention and they take into account the findings of medical specialists, experts and therapists prior to the scheduled flight in order to guarantee continuous medical treatment. 4.12 The State party also notes that the authors used at least three different identities in Europe and were unable to substantiate their names, dates of birth and nationalities. 4.13 On 20 April 2017, the State party provided a copy of the decision by the Federal Administrative Court dated 8 March 2017. State party’s observations on the merits 5.1 On 14 August 2017, the State party provided its observations on the merits. It recalls that the Austrian authorities were unable to establish the authors’ identities and nationalities due to their contradictory statements. The Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum and the Federal Administrative Court rejected the authors’ asylum applications because under the Dublin Regulation Bulgaria was responsible for examining their claim. Furthermore, the State party maintains that, should they be removed, the authors would not be exposed to a real risk of a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which, in the State party’s submission, are almost identical to article 7 of the Covenant. 14 6 R.A.A. and Z.M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015).