CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 police. The Committee further observes that the author was exposed to kicking and shouting by the police at the Elhovo centre, as well as to poor material conditions and the absence of medical services. One week later, he was transferred to the Voenna Rampa refugee camp, where he witnessed brutal beatings and the ill-treatment of asylum seekers returned from other European Union member States, and where he was exposed to dire material conditions. Furthermore, the Committee notes the author’s claim that he suffers from asthma but did not receive the medication prescribed to him by the doctor at the camp, and that he left the refugee camp on 19 May 2016, without the asylum procedure being concluded on the merits. The Committee also observes that the author also relied on reports on the general situation of asylum seekers in Bulgaria. Nonetheless, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that the author did not refer to the alleged violations of his rights during the asylum procedure, but has only invoked them in the communication, without allowing the State party’s authorities to consider the claims during the domestic proceedings. The Committee observes that the State party has questioned the genuineness of the author’s allegations, arguing that the failure of the author cannot be attributed to the State party. 10.5 As regards article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the Committee notes the author’s claim that the asylum and judicial review procedures did not represent an effective remedy as he was heard only once, at the asylum interview, whereas he was not questioned about his specific circumstances in relation to a potential transfer to Bulgaria during the proceedings before the Immigration and Asylum Office and the Metropolitan Administrative and Labour Court. The Committee in particular notes the author’s claim that the Hungarian authorities exclusively focused on the Dublin III Regulation, without assessing how the Bulgarian asylum system functions in practice, that is, whether he would have access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure in Bulgaria and whether he would have access to psychological assistance. 10.6 The Committee further notes the State party’s submissions that the author was properly informed about his rights and obligations during the asylum procedure; that he signed the interview minutes without any amendments; that he did not mention any circumstances during the asylum and judicial procedures that he has referred to in his communication to the Committee; that he claimed to be physically and mentally fit before and during the asylum interview; and that his right to remedy was effectively secured as he appealed the negative asylum decision to the Metropolitan Court. The Committee also notes the State party’s claim that in his appeal the author did not object to the lawfulness of the procedure, the grounds of which instead concerned intended family reunification, and that he did not complain about any shortcomings in the Bulgarian asylum system or state that Bulgaria was not a safe country in his case. 10.7 The Committee observes that the material before it, as well as general information in the public domain on the situation of asylum seekers in Bulgaria, indicate that there may be a lack of available places in the reception facilities for asylum seekers and that they are often in poor sanitary condition and without adequate medical personnel and assistance. However, the Committee notes that the author was not homeless before his departure from Bulgaria as he stayed in a refugee camp, and did not live in destitution. The Committee also observes that, according to his own statement, the author had access, though limited, to medical treatment during his stay in Bulgaria. Likewise, the author has not provided any information that would explain why he would not be able to seek asylum in Bulgaria. The Committee further observes that the author was informed about the application of the Dublin procedure by the Immigration and Asylum Office in his case, that he was heard once in the presence of an interpreter and that the interview was held in a fair and objective manner, which he attested by a signature. The Committee notes that the author’s appeal of the negative asylum decision failed for not meeting the burden of allegation and proof, and that his explanation for that failure was not persuasive. In the circumstances, the Committee observes that the author has not substantiated his claim that he would face a real and personal risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Bulgaria. 28 The Committee considers that the mere fact that the author may be possibly confronted with difficulties 28 GE.19-08969 See, e.g., communication B.M.I. and N.A.K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/118/D/2569/2015), para. 8.6. 13