CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015 Tarakhel v. Switzerland is applicable to their case, as the living conditions of beneficiaries of international protection in Bulgaria can be regarded as similar to the situation of asylum seekers in Italy, and that the premise outlined in the case of Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy is no longer sufficient, as individual guarantees, especially securing the return of children from destitution and harsh accommodation conditions are required by the Court. The authors argue that the Court’s reasoning in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland regarding article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights can be regarded as corresponding to article 7 of the Covenant. 5.4 The authors also refer to the Committee’s Views on Jasin et al. v. Denmark,33 in which it emphasized the need to give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk a person might face if removed. The authors submit that this requires an individualized assessment of the risk faced by the person, rather than reliance on general reports and on the assumption that having been granted subsidiary protection in the past, she or he would in principle be entitled to work and receive social benefits. They further claim that, regardless of Bulgarian legislation on the formal access to social benefits, health care and education, relevant background information indicates that refugees in Bulgaria risk facing homelessness and destitution, and that the Refugee Appeals Board has failed to give sufficient weight to the real personal risk they and their baby would face if removed there. Furthermore, the Board did not adequately take into account the information presented by the authors regarding their experience in Bulgaria, where they did not receive adequate assistance from the authorities, but instead relied on general information according to which, in theory, refugees have access to work, social aid and accommodation. They further submit that the Board did not take into account that they had to use some savings and received some financial help from their families in the Syrian Arab Republic owing to the lack of assistance from the Bulgarian authorities. In addition, the Board did not contact the Bulgarian authorities to ensure that they and their baby would be received under circumstances in which they could get the benefit of their rights. The authors finally submit that as newly recognized refugees, they need further support to get established in a country of asylum, as they do not possess cultural or social networks and that special attention must be given to the facts that they have a baby and that the male author suffers from severe medical conditions that require treatment, which was not taken into account by the authorities in Bulgaria. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the present communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the authors’ claim under article 7 of the Covenant is 33 10 Communication No. 2360/2014, Views adopted on 22 July 2015.