CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 potential errors during the domestic asylum and court proceedings that, cumulatively, sufficiently substantiated his claims for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee further considers that the inadmissibility argument adduced by the State party is intimately linked to the merits and should thus be considered at that stage. 9.5 The Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 7 and article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his deportation to Bulgaria, based on the Dublin III Regulation principle of “first country of asylum”, would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm as he would likely be detained and held in conditions amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment there, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author bases his arguments on, inter alia, the actual treatment he received when in Bulgaria; his particular vulnerability due to suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder; the general reception conditions in facilities for asylum seekers in Bulgaria, including the lack of access to mental health care; and the treatment of asylum seekers with excessive force and humiliation, as described in various background reports. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that, even if he were not detained, the Dublin returnees are likely to be deprived of their right to accommodation as only those with visible vulnerabilities are provided with reception. The Committee further notes the author’s claims that the asylum and judicial procedures suffered from procedural errors, such as the absence of a personalized assessment of the application of the Dublin III Regulation in his circumstances, and that he was consequently deprived of the right to an effective remedy, in violation of article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims should be considered manifestly illfounded. 10.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant (para. 12). The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high.25 Furthermore, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists,26 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.27 10.4 Concerning article 7, the Committee notes the author’s claims that he would likely be detained and held in conditions amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment, as described in the background reports and also in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the routine detention of asylum seekers, inappropriate reception conditions, including lack of food, liquids and sanitation, and serious shortcomings in asylum procedure. The Committee also notes the author’s claims that even if he were not detained, he fears facing a lack of accommodation, a lack of access to mental health care, which would result in a serious deterioration of his current condition, the absence of identification procedure for vulnerable asylum seekers and the use of excessive force and brutality by the Bulgarian authorities. The Committee observes as undisputed that the author entered Bulgaria illegally, was apprehended and severely beaten by the Bulgarian 25 26 27 12 See communications X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2; A.R.J. v. Australia (CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996), para. 6.6; and X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. See communication Z.H. v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. See communications Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015), para. 7.3; and Rezaifar v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014), para. 9.3. GE.19-08969