CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 application of the Dublin III Regulation. He adds that this obligation entails taking steps to proactively identify vulnerable asylum seekers, which the State party’s authorities failed to do. The author argues that without fulfilling these obligations, the State party cannot legitimately rely on his failure to present every possible argument available, especially considering that he did not have legal representation. 5.3 The author notes that he only had one short interview with the authorities of the State party during his asylum application and that he was not asked any questions regarding Bulgaria or the Dublin procedure. He claims that he was never properly informed about the Dublin procedure, despite the State party’s clear obligation to do so under article 4 of that Regulation. Consequently, he could not have known what sort of information, and in relation to which country, he was to put forward arguments during the proceedings. 5.4 Regarding his health condition, the author claims that he could not have provided the State party with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, as an asylum seeker suffering from the symptoms of that disorder would not be able to give full account of his mental health condition. 5.5 Based on the above, the author maintains his claim that the authorities of the State party failed to fulfil their obligation to provide effective guarantees to protect him against arbitrary removal to Bulgaria resulting in a potential violation of article 7 and article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant. 5.6 The author further claims that the proceedings regarding his asylum application were marred by significant procedural errors. He submits that the judicial review by the Metropolitan Court was not compatible with the preamble and article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation, according to which an applicant has the right to an effective remedy that should cover both the examination of the application of the Dublin III Regulation and the legal and factual situation in the member State concerned. He claims that he was not presented with the chance to be heard on either the potential applicability of the Dublin III Regulation or on the potential consequences of his return to Bulgaria, entailing the risk of torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment under article 7. He also claims that this failure has not been remedied by the domestic court, and that he was denied a personal hearing. He further claims that the Metropolitan Court failed to assess the publicly available information on the Bulgarian asylum system and reception conditions. In addition, he notes that he was not represented by a lawyer during the proceedings and claims that he had not received any information on the nature and substance of the process and was therefore not in a position to submit the necessary arguments. He thus claims that the judicial review did not contain a meaningful assessment of his claim. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 28 August 2017, the State party submitted its supplementary observations on admissibility and the merits, reiterating that the author’s claims had not been substantiated. 6.2 As regards the author’s statements that the Immigration and Asylum Office should have examined whether the author’s return to Bulgaria qualified as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, the State party maintains its position that the procedure conducted by the Office was in line with the relevant legal provisions, in particular the requirements of the Dublin III Regulation. It notes that it would be unreasonable to expect the asylum authority and the relevant courts to conduct fact-finding missions in the receiving country in each case. This does not, however, prevent either the asylum authority or the courts from examining the individual circumstances, as was done in the author’s case, since the authorities compared his individual circumstances to the general information relevant to the case, including with regard to the Bulgarian asylum system. 6.3 The State party claims that during the author’s asylum interview on 28 May 2016, he did not refer to any mistreatment suffered during his stay in Bulgaria, as concerning his health condition, he claimed to be healthy. It also rectifies its earlier submission to clarify in some cases, it may be for the examiner to use all the means at his disposal to produce the necessary evidence in support of the application.” GE.19-08969 7