CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015 State Agency for Refugees provides two hot meals a day to residents and many residents are now being allowed to remain in the centres for longer periods after being granted refugee or humanitarian status, if they lack the means to support themselves. 23 In addition, it states that, according to a UNHCR report (also of 2013), although the quality of accommodation of asylum seekers and protection status holders after leaving the reception centres is directly dependent on their employment and income, their family status also counts, as families with children receive a more “positive attitude” from landlords. Additionally, according to the same report, no cases have been registered of families being forced to leave the reception centres without having been provided with accommodation, or at least with funds to rent lodgings. 24 4.6 The State party further indicates that refugees have access to health care and free medical treatment if they are registered with a general practitioner.25 It cites a report by the Bulgarian Council on Refugees and Migrants, according to which beneficiaries of international protection are entitled to the same social assistance and services as nationals, including the right to the health insurance of their choice.26 With respect to the authors’ statement that they run the risk of racist attacks in Bulgaria, the State party reiterates that they can address themselves to the national authorities for protection, as the authorities have taken measures against such incidents, and refers once again to the attack against a mosque in February 2014, which resulted in the arrest of 120 people. 4.7 The State party further refers to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy,27 and states that it is applicable to the present communication. In that ruling, the Court stated that the assessment of a possible violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be rigorous and should analyse the conditions in the receiving country against the standard established by such provisions of the Convention. In particular, the Court indicated that in the absence of exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds against removal, 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. 28 Furthermore, the State party considers that it cannot be inferred from the judgment of the Court in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland that individual guarantees must be obtained from the Bulgarian authorities in the case at hand, as the authors have already been granted refugee status in Bulgaria, while in Tarakhel v. Switzerland the authors’ application for asylum in Italy was still pending when the case was reviewed by the Court. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 26 January 2016, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. The authors reiterate that they have adequately explained the reasons for which they fear that their forcible return to Bulgaria would result in a breach of article 7 of the Covenant and consider that their claims in this regard have been duly substantiated. They submit that it is uncontested that they were detained for five days upon arrival in 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Ibid., p. 5. The State party refers to “Where is my home? Homelessness and access to housing among asylum seekers, refugees and persons with international protection in Bulgaria”, p. 6. The State party refers to “Bulgaria as a country of asylum. UNHCR observations on the current situation of asylum in Bulgaria”, p. 12 (although the report does not refer to this matter), and “Trapped in Europe’s quagmire”, p. 16. See “Monitoring report on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection in the Republic of Bulgaria in 2014”. Application No. 27725/10, 2 April 2013. Ibid., para. 71.