CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015 7.4 The Committee notes that according to the authors, they were detained for five days upon their arrival in Bulgaria, during which time they were abused by the police, and that they were then transferred to a reception centre, where they lived between June and September 2014, whence they were asked to leave when they were granted refugee status, without being provided with alternative accommodation. Subsequently, they lived on the streets for two to three days, but managed to go back to the reception centre and live in hiding there until they left Bulgaria, thanks to some contacts they had among the asylum seekers. The Committee also notes the authors’ submissions that the male author was denied medical treatment, despite the fact that he has a serious heart condition, as he was given painkillers after collapsing in the reception centre; that he was rejected at the hospital because he did not have a residence permit and that once he received such permit, his appointments were cancelled three times without any reason being provided. The Committee further notes the authors’ allegations that the male author suffered an apparently racially motivated attack, that he did not receive any protection from the authorities and that he was not allowed to file a complaint to the police, as he was refused entrance to the police station. The Committee further notes the authors’ claim that out of fear for their safety and that they would be unable to provide for their child, access adequate medical treatment or find a humanitarian solution to their situation, they left Bulgaria and went to Denmark, where they requested asylum in December 2014. The authors, refugees, one of them suffering from serious heart disease which requires medical treatment, and with a baby, now find themselves in a situation of great vulnerability. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the various reports submitted by the authors highlighting the lack of a functional integration programme for refugees in Bulgaria and the serious difficulties they face in gaining access to housing, work or social benefits, including health care and education. The Committee further notes the background material, according to which there may be a lack of available places in the reception facilities for asylum seekers and returnees under the Dublin regulation and which are often in poor sanitary conditions. It further notes that returnees like the authors, who have already been granted a form of protection and benefited from reception facilities in Bulgaria, are not entitled to accommodation in the asylum camps beyond the six-month period after protection status has been granted; and that although beneficiaries of protection are entitled to work and social rights in Bulgaria, its social system is in general insufficient to meet the authors’ needs. 7.6 The Committee notes the finding of the Refugee Appeals Board that Bulgaria should be considered the country of first asylum in the present case and the position of the State party that the country of first asylum is obliged to provide asylum seekers with basic human rights, although it is not required to provide them with the same social and living standards as nationals of the country. The Committee further notes the reference made by the State party to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the fact that the applicant’s material and social living conditions would be significantly reduced if he or she were to be removed from the Contracting State is not sufficient in itself to give rise to a breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 39 7.7 The Committee considers, however, that the State party’s conclusion did not adequately take into account the information provided by the authors, based on their own personal experience that, despite being granted a residence permit in Bulgaria, they faced intolerable living conditions there. In that connection, the Committee notes that the State party does not explain how, in case of a return to Bulgaria, the residence permits would protect them, in particular as regards access to the medical treatments that the male author 39 12 See Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy.