CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 upon his return to Bulgaria does not in itself mean that he would be in a special situation of vulnerability and in a situation significantly different to many other Dublin returnees, notwithstanding the necessary treatment of his post-traumatic stress disorder. 10.8 The Committee also considers that, in the present case, the author’s claims mainly reflect his disagreement with the decision of the State party’s authorities to return him to Bulgaria as his country of first asylum, and that he failed to explain why that decision is manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary or amounting to a denial of justice.29 Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the removal of the author to Bulgaria by the State party would constitute a violation of article 7 or that the author’s rights under article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant have been violated in arriving at the negative asylum decision. 11. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Bulgaria would not be a violation by the State party of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee is, however, confident that the State party will duly inform the Bulgarian authorities of the author’s removal, in order for the author to be taken charge of in a manner adapted to his medical and other needs, as required. 29 14 See, e.g., P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.4. GE.19-08969