CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 gathered into account when examining whether a decision on transfer to Bulgaria could indeed be issued. Consequently, the Office failed to act according to its legal obligations, resulting in the infringement of European Union law as well as the Covenant and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). 7.7 The author further objects to the misleading observations by the State party. The State party refers to the information note given to the author during the asylum procedure without mentioning that the information was provided exclusively in relation to the general questions of the Hungarian asylum procedure, while it did not inform the author about the Dublin procedure in detail or about a potential transfer to Bulgaria. The right to be heard is enshrined in the Dublin III Regulation (art. 5); therefore the authorities cannot simply assume that the applicant had read and understood the information leaflet given to him. According to article 5, the aim of the personal hearing is to facilitate the process of determining the responsible member State, and to allow a proper understanding of the information supplied. 7.8 During the review procedure carried out by the Metropolitan Court, the author had no legal assistance. Consequently, he could not have known what to submit to the court or what he should have highlighted. He submits that the judicial review procedure is a nonlitigious procedure (without oral hearing), which must be completed within eight days (Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum (as amended, 2016), sect. 49 (8)). The review procedure raises serious questions, given that the request for a judicial review must be submitted through an asylum authority, which forwards it to the Metropolitan Court with its comments on the case. With such a short deadline in place, the court will be more inclined to adopt the legalistic arguments presented by the Office rather than examine the case in depth. The present case clearly demonstrates how the current system of judicial review of Dublin decisions fails to uphold the principle of the equality of arms. It may therefore be concluded that the right to an effective remedy, as required by article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, was seriously violated. 7.9 Although there is indeed no European Union decision according to which Bulgaria could not be considered as a safe country, several member States do halt returns to Bulgaria.20 The author also refers to the letter dated 6 July 2017 on “Measures of improvement of the Bulgarian asylum system”, sent by the Directorate-General of Home Affairs to the Bulgarian authorities, especially in relation to the issue of the identification of vulnerable asylum seekers, given the low recognition rate and the systematic detention of Afghan asylum seekers. 7.10 The author lastly submits that he is still suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms. The most recent psychiatric opinion, issued on 8 November 2017, indicates that “as a result of the extended uncertainty and feelings of incompetence, his psychotic symptoms remained, which results in the maintained need of regular psychotherapy and medication”.21 Finally, the author claims that, since the Hungarian authorities have failed to secure effective guarantees to protect him against arbitrary removal to Bulgaria, taking into account that its authorities have not yet taken the responsibility to examine the author’s asylum claim under the Dublin III Regulation, his rights guaranteed by article 7 and article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant have been violated, and the author is still in danger of being exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment. Author’s additional comments 8.1 On 13 June 2018, the author submitted additional comments. 8.2 He draws attention to the recent medical documentation on the deteriorating state of his mental and physical health owing to his impending deportation to Bulgaria despite the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment there. According to a medical certificate of 10 20 21 10 The author provides a list of Dublin transfers that have been prevented, referring to relevant case law from Belgium and Germany. Psychiatric opinion issued by the Cordelia Foundation on 8 November 2017, supplied by the author. GE.19-08969