CCPR/C/127/D/2956/2017 5.6 The State party reiterates that UNHCR no longer recommends not to carry out any Dublin Regulation transfers to Bulgaria and that a special support plan for Bulgaria has been developed by the European Asylum Support Office. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has so far not issued decisions giving rise to concerns that asylum seekers are treated or cared for inadequately in Bulgaria. The Court’s conclusion in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece that a State member of the European Union should not remove individuals to a member State where deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions would result in a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment does not apply in the present case, as systemic deficiencies in procedures and conditions do not exist in Bulgaria and there are no individual grounds for reaching such a conclusion. 5.7 The State party refers to the reception conditions of the authors following their return to Bulgaria as described in the report of 31 March 2017 by the Bulgarian State Agency for Refugees with the Council of Ministers. The Agency reports that the Bulgarian authorities accommodated the authors in the refugee centre of Vrazhdebna-Sofia and that they received care in line with the Reception Conditions Directive. The authors were given a warm meal three times per day and had access to the Bulgarian health-care system, including psychological treatment. The report also notes that some of the authors had already made use of medical care. It adds that, while at the refugee centre of VrazhdebnaSofia, the father fell down in the bathroom and “probably” broke his leg. He was immediately transferred to the Pirogov Emergency Hospital in Sofia, where he refused further treatment, explaining that he wished to return to Iraq and continue his treatment there. The State party provides a copy of a declaration attributed to the father, dated 30 March 2017, stating that he had refused further treatment of his knee in the Pirogov Emergency Hospital because he did not know who would pay for it, that his only problem was his knee and that the living conditions and the atmosphere in the refugee centre were “good and pleasant”.18 5.8 As for the authors’ claim under article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party submits that the authors have not explained how their rights under that article have been violated. The State party specifies that its domestic legal framework requires the execution of a removal order to be delayed until the statutory time limit for filing an appeal has passed. If the conditions for granting suspensive effect to the appeal are met and if such effect is not granted within one week, the asylum seeker can request the Supreme Administrative Court to fix an adequate time limit for taking such a decision. The Constitutional Court concurs that the appellate courts may decide on a case-by-case basis whether to grant suspensive effect to the appeal as long as the removal is suspended until the decision has been made. 5.9 The State party underscores that, in Austria, independent judicial authorities decide on requests for suspensive effect within very short time limits upon careful scrutiny of the documents submitted to them by applicants. Austrian law requires decision-making authorities to examine whether the execution of a removal order would violate the nonrefoulement principle. 5.10 The State party observes that appellants to a decision of the Federal Administrative Court can appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court and that the authors therefore had effective legal remedies against the refusal of their asylum applications. The authors did appeal to the Constitutional Court but not to the Supreme Administrative Court.19 Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 In their comments of 24 October 2017, the authors note that in June 2017 the Austrian Constitutional Court had annulled a decision by the Federal Administrative Court on the transfer of a mother with two minor children to Bulgaria because the Federal Administrative Court had not acknowledged that the housing situation in Bulgaria had deteriorated to the point of being unsatisfactory. The judgment notes that the UNHCR 18 19 8 The father’s declaration, which was provided in German only, reads: “die Lebensbedingungen und die Atmosphäre im Zentrum sind gut und angenehm. Das einzige Problem ist, dass ich mein Bein gebrochen habe”. See footnote 6 above.