CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015 unsubstantiated. The Committee however considers that the inadmissibility argument adduced by the State party is intimately linked to the merits of the case. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible, insofar as it raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that deporting them and their baby to Bulgaria, based on the Dublin regulation principle of first country of asylum, would expose them to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The authors base their arguments, inter alia, on the actual treatment they received after they were granted residence permits in Bulgaria and on the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees entering Bulgaria, as found in various reports.34 The Committee notes the authors’ argument that they would face a precarious socioeconomic situation, given the lack of access to financial help or social assistance and to integration programmes for refugees and asylum seekers, as demonstrated by their experience as asylum seekers and after they received refugee status and residence permits in September 2014. The Committee further notes the authors’ submission that since they benefited from the reception system when they first arrived in Bulgaria and as they were granted refugee status, they would have no access to social housing or temporary shelters. It also notes the authors’ submission that the male author would not have access to adequate medical treatment for his heart disease35 and that they would not be able to find accommodation and a job, and therefore they would face homelessness and be forced to live with their baby on the streets. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant (para. 12), in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high.36 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists, 37 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 38 34 35 36 37 38 See “Trapped in Europe’s quagmire”, p. 22; “Where is my home? homelessness and access to housing among asylum seekers, refugees and persons with international protection in Bulgaria”, p. 13; and Asylum Information Database, “National country report: Bulgaria”, pp. 10-13. See “Trapped in Europe’s quagmire”, p. 16. On the same matter, UNHCR has stated that it is concerned about the gap with regard to access to health care for beneficiaries of international protection once they have been granted such protection. It has urged the Bulgarian authorities to ensure continued access to health care for beneficiaries of international protection. See “Bulgaria as a country of asylum. UNHCR observations on the current situation of asylum in Bulgaria”, p. 13. See X v. Denmark, para. 9.2, and communications No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6, and No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communication No. 1957/2010, Z.H. v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. Ibid. and see, inter alia, communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. 11