CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 author in his appeal did not name any other relatives who would qualify as family members under the Dublin III Regulation, and he did not raise any other objections against the continuation of the procedure to be conducted by the Bulgarian authorities. The State party notes that the author did not complain about any mental health condition or health problems in the appeals phase of the proceedings either. It also notes that the psychiatric diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder was only issued by the Cordelia Foundation on 11 November 2016, after the Metropolitan Court had delivered its legally binding decision on 17 October 2016.15 4.8 The State party reiterates that the author did not refer to any condition, such as an “improper mental state” or medical problems, calling for him to be considered as a vulnerable person. To the contrary, the author seemed to be an adult, single and healthy man who had served as a police officer in his country of origin and had fled his country because he did not want to join the Taliban forces. The Hungarian authorities had no reason to call those circumstances into question. In addition, the State party notes that the author’s sibling, who also submitted a request for asylum, did not mention any circumstances that would give rise to the suspicion that the author might belong to a vulnerable group. 16 Circumstances that would substantiate the alleged violation of the author’s rights were only put forward in the complaint submitted to the Committee. The State party thus questions the genuineness of those allegations and claims that it cannot be made responsible for the author’s failure to inform the authorities about the circumstances he referred to in his complaint, be these allegations true or false. 4.9 Furthermore, the State party emphasizes that the reports cited by the author in his complaint were written two to three years ago and do not reflect the current conditions in Bulgaria. In particular, those reports did not take into consideration the development assistance and aid funded by the European Union in recent years. It also claims that there is no European Union decision according to which, contrary to Greece, Bulgaria cannot be considered as a safe country. The State party finally reiterates that the author did not put forward any arguments in his appeal claiming that Bulgaria is not a safe country in his case that would have caused the Hungarian authorities to reach a different outcome in their decision. It argues that the violations claimed by the author are not well founded and that the complaint is therefore inadmissible. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 3 April 2017, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations, claiming that the State party had failed to rely on relevant legal reasoning in its observations on admissibility. The author asserts that the Immigration and Asylum Office and the Metropolitan Court did not fulfil their duty to undertake a future-oriented risk assessment regarding the author’s deportation to Bulgaria, as they failed to carry out the necessary fact-finding and assessment of relevant country information in light of the author’s individual circumstances. 5.2 The author notes that the State party has referred to the fact that he did not make any declaration before the State party’s authorities regarding his poor health condition and the previous ill-treatment he had suffered in Bulgaria. The author claims that the Office had an obligation to ascertain the relevant facts of his case, 17 especially those relevant within the 15 16 17 6 The Court explained in its reasoning that the Office acted lawfully when it examined the available documents and the author’s oral statements. In the case of the author’s sibling, it was also established that Bulgaria would be the State adjudicating his asylum request. The author refers to article 50 (1) of Act CXL of 2004 on the General Rules of Administrative Proceedings and Services, which states that “the authority shall ascertain the relevant facts of the case in the decision-making process. If the information available is insufficient, the authority shall initiate an evidence procedure”, and to section 196 of the Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which directs: “Thus, while the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the examiner. Indeed, GE.19-08969