CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 understood and took note of the information. Prior to the personal interview, the applicant claimed to be physically and mentally fit for the interview. During the interview, he also claimed to be healthy. Regarding the circumstances of his arrival in Hungary, the author stated that he had travelled with his brother from Afghanistan to the Islamic Republic of Iran legally and had continued to Turkey, where they had spent two months. They had then travelled to Bulgaria with the help of smugglers, where they had spent one month (one week in a closed facility and three weeks in an open reception facility). However, their asylum procedure could not be conducted on the merits as they had absconded to Serbia, where they had spent five or six days, following which they had travelled onwards to Hungary by bus. The author stated that their original destination had been Hungary, as their aunt had been living there for 15 years. The author claimed that his profession as a police officer had been the reason for his escape from Afghanistan, as the Taliban had threatened him in order to make him join their forces. The State party claims that the minutes of the interview were read back to the author at the end of the interview and that he did not wish to amend or make any additions to the minutes, which he therefore approved.13 4.4 Having taken the author’s fingerprints, the Immigration and Asylum Office14 established that the Eurodac system already contained the author’s fingerprints from Bulgaria, taken at the Voenna Rampa refugee camp on 20 April 2016. The Office also established that the Dublin procedure should be initiated, and the author’s asylum procedure was suspended on 28 May 2016 until the Dublin procedure was completed. The Office assigned the author to Vámosszabadi Reception Centre as a place of residence; however, the author never arrived there. On 30 May 2016, the author filed a request with the Office to allow him to remain at his aunt’s private residence. Consequently, the Office designated the aunt’s home as the author’s residence. 4.5 On 27 July 2016, the Office established that Bulgaria was the State responsible for examining the author’s application for international protection. The author was notified of that decision on 14 September 2016. He filed for appeal on the same date and stated that around 70 of his family members, who had escaped from Afghanistan in the 1980s, were currently living in Hungary. He explained that his family members could help him in the asylum procedure and in his integration process. According to the State party, at that stage of the proceedings he did not mention any other facts or circumstances that he has referred to in his complaint submitted to the Committee. 4.6 The State party emphasizes that the author was given information about the asylum procedure, both in writing and orally, including the implications of the Dublin procedure, and the author understood and took note of it. The author claimed to be physically and mentally fit before and during the interview, and he did not mention his asthma or issues concerning his mental condition during the interview. Each page of the interview minutes has been signed by the author. The authorities informed the author about the application of the Dublin III Regulation and another personal interview took place, pursuant to article 5 of that Regulation. Since the author did not indicate any medical problems, the asylum authority could not consider these facts. 4.7 The author appealed against the Immigration and Asylum Office’s decision that Bulgaria was the responsible State for examining his application for international protection, based on article 49 of Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum (as amended, 2016), which is in compliance with article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation. His right to remedy was indeed secured, and the author exercised his right when he appealed the Office’s decision. In his appeal, the author did not object to the lawfulness of the procedure, nor did he complain about any shortcomings in the Bulgarian asylum system or state that Bulgaria was not a safe country in his case. The author’s appeal was merely based on the fact that around 70 of his family members live in Hungary, many of whom received Hungarian citizenship. He particularly referred to his aunt living in Hungary for 15 years. In the view of the State party, the author’s aunt does not qualify as a family member under article 2 (g) of the Dublin III Regulation, thus this circumstance is irrelevant in the asylum procedure. The 13 14 GE.19-08969 The minutes are not enclosed with the State party’s observations. While the author refers to the office of immigration and nationality, the State party uses the name Immigration and Asylum Office. 5