CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 7.1 On 27 November 2017, the author submitted his comments regarding the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. 7.2 As to the State party’s contention that the author never referred to the alleged violation of his rights during the asylum procedure, and only invoked them in the communication, the author reiterates that he has only had one short interview so far, during which he was not asked any question in relation to Bulgaria or any relevant question regarding the Dublin procedure. Moreover, the fact that the Immigration and Asylum Office did not meet its obligation to properly inform the author about the Dublin procedure (art. 4) and carry out an interview in relation to it (art. 5), amounted to a violation of the Dublin III Regulation. 7.3 On the merits, the author submits that the State party failed to provide any new legal reasoning, as it has only reiterated its arguments put forward in its previous observations, namely that the author failed to express his observations regarding Bulgaria and that he did not reveal his mental health problem either before the Immigration and Asylum Office or the Metropolitan Administrative and Labour Court. He argues that the State party only generally referred to the Dublin III Regulation. Without supplying evidence that it complied with the relevant legal provisions, the State party’s argument cannot be considered as capable of rebutting the author’s arguments. The author also objects that he did not refer to “fact-finding missions” but to “fact-finding” as an obligation of the Office based on section 50 (1) of Act CXL of 2004 on the General Rules of Administrative Proceedings and Services.18 7.4 As for the State party’s assertions concerning the individualized examination of the case, there is no indication in the files that the relevant authorities conducted any examination regarding the available information on the Bulgarian asylum system. There is no reference to such an examination either in the decision or in the case files. 7.5 Concerning the lack of statements by the author about his poor mental health condition and experience in Bulgaria, the author reiterates that no questions were put to him concerning Bulgaria, contrary to the Dublin III Regulation. There was no appropriate identification of the author’s vulnerability (his health condition) either, as required by section 3 (1) and (2) of Government Decree No. 301/2007. The Immigration and Asylum Office has therefore violated its obligation to properly assess the asylum seeker’s individual circumstances. 7.6 In addition, persons suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are, by definition, not suited to give a detailed account of their mental disease without any psychological help. A lack of trust in the officer conducting the interview may make it impossible for a traumatized asylum seeker to reveal his or her psychological difficulties, provided that he or she is able to identify them in the first place. There are several signs from which posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms can be assessed (such as frequent headaches, flashbacks, sleeping disorders, etc.); nonetheless, the authority failed to ask the relevant questions from the author and did not conduct any other procedure aiming to identify his potential vulnerability. The author, referring to a recent report on the topic, submits that the protection needs of asylum seekers are not systematically assessed.19 Had the Immigration and Asylum Office carried out the vulnerability identification procedure, it would have been able to assess the psychological needs of the author. If the possibility of conducting a Dublin procedure is identified, the Office should conduct an early identification of persons with special needs and inform the applicant about the Dublin procedure in detail, while taking into account the individual vulnerability of the applicant. Specific and targeted questions about countries where a transfer could potentially take place – in the present case, Bulgaria – should also be asked. Subsequently, the Office should take all the information 18 19 GE.19-08969 According to that provision, “the authority shall ascertain the relevant facts of the case in the decision-making process”. See Gruša Matevžič, Unidentified and Unattended: the response of Eastern EU Member States to the Special Needs of Torture Survivor and Traumatised Asylum Seekers (Budapest, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, May 2017). 9