CCPR/C/127/D/2956/2017 2.6 On 25 January 2017, the authors lodged an appeal before the Federal Administrative Court, which did not grant suspensive effect to their application. It dismissed the appeal as unfounded on 8 March 2017. The father appealed against that decision. 6 2.7 On 10 February 2017, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum requested from the chief physician of the Department on Medical and Health Issues of the Federal Ministry of the Interior an opinion on whether the authors were able to travel, given the father’s bladder neck stenosis, the mother’s gynaecological problems and the thalassaemia of one of the children. 7 On 13 February 2017, the chief physician concluded that the thalassaemia required no further examination and that, from a medical perspective, the authors’ removal could be executed. The State party claims that it immediately transferred the health data to the Bulgarian authorities. 2.8 On 16 March 2017, the State party removed the authors to Bulgaria. 2.9 The authors filed petitions on 20 March 2017 in respect of the closing of their asylum procedures in Bulgaria and requested assistance for their voluntary return to Iraq. 2.10 On 26 April 2017, the authors lodged an appeal before the Austrian Constitutional Court. On 2 May 2017, the Constitutional Court decided to grant suspensive effect to the appeal. On 4 May 2017, the authors requested the Federal Ministry of the Interior to instruct the Embassy of Austria in Bulgaria to permit their re-entry into Austria. The authors requested the Constitutional Court to grant an interim measure to the same effect on 30 June 2017. 2.11 Following the authors’ request of 20 March 2017, the Bulgarian authorities discontinued their asylum procedures. The authors appealed against that decision. 8 2.12 On 21 September 2017, the Austrian Constitutional Court rejected the authors’ appeal. The authors submit that they had not been readmitted into Austria before the rendering of the judgment. 2.13 On 20 February 2018, the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court rejected the father’s appeal. 2.14 According to the authors, they were transferred from Bulgaria to Iraq approximately on 20 November 2017. They currently reside near the city of Zakho. The complaint 3.1 In their initial submission, the authors claim that their deportation to Bulgaria would put them at risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. They refer to a report dated 2 January 2014, in which the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) advocated halting the transfer of asylum seekers to Bulgaria because of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment emanating from systemic deficiencies in reception conditions and asylum procedures.9 They add that, while UNHCR lifted its call to suspend removals to Bulgaria on 15 April 2014 due to significant improvements in 6 7 8 9 In its submissions on the admissibility of the communication, the State party states that an inadmissibility finding by the Supreme Administrative Court was communicated to the authors on 15 March 2017. This appears to contradict the State party’s observation, in its submissions on the merits of the communication, of 14 August 2017 that the authors had not appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. It also appears to contradict the authors’ submission of 24 October 2017, in which they claim that as a “last domestic legal remedy the applicants can lodge an appeal to the High Administrative Court which will be done within the statutory limit”. The State party has provided a copy of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision dated 20 February 2018 but no copy of any decision dated 15 March 2017. The authors do not specify which child was suffering from thalassaemia. In their additional submission of 31 August 2018, the authors contend that four of the five children were suffering from thalassaemia. In its submission on the merits of 14 August 2017, the State party notes that the Administrative Court of Sofia had rejected the appeals of the mother and the children; the father’s appeal was still pending. Neither party has since provided information on the outcome of the father’s appeal. UNHCR, “Bulgaria as a country of asylum: UNHCR observations on the current situation of asylum in Bulgaria”, 2 January 2014. Available from www.refworld.org/pdfid/52c598354.pdf. 3