CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015 3.3 The authors further submit that owing to their experience of racially motivated attacks and xenophobia that is spreading in Bulgaria but is not being addressed by the authorities, they do not believe that the country is a safe place for a refugee family with a baby. In this connection, they argue that refugees with minor children are a particularly vulnerable group in Bulgaria and they indicate that according to background information, institutional racism, including racist interventions by high-level politicians, are widespread in Bulgaria.16 3.4 The authors state that the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Tarakhel v. Switzerland17 is relevant for the present case, as it refers to a country where no effective integration programme is in place and consequently, refugees and asylum seekers live in extremely harsh conditions. They add that in Bulgaria, refugees might find themselves in a more vulnerable position, as they do not have access to the reception facilities for asylum seekers. The authors note that in the Tarakhel case, the Court required Switzerland to obtain assurances from its Italian counterparts that the applicants (a family) would be received in facilities and conditions adapted to the age of the children and that if such assurances were not made, Switzerland would be violating article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights by transferring them there. The authors argue that in the light of that finding, the harsh conditions faced by refugees returning to Bulgaria would fall within the scope of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 7 of the Covenant. They therefore reiterate that their deportation to Bulgaria would amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. They further submit that the decision in the Tarakhel case indicates that individual guarantees, such as keeping returning children safe from destitution and harsh accommodation conditions, are necessary. State party’s observations 4.1 On 9 November 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It first describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board and the legislation applying to cases related to the Dublin regulation.18 4.2 Then, as to the admissibility and merits of the communication, the State party argues that the authors have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that they will be in danger of being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Bulgaria. The communication is therefore manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. In the alternative, the State party submits that the authors have not sufficiently established that article 7 will be violated in case of their return to Bulgaria. It follows from the Committee’s jurisprudence that States parties are under an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, whether in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The Committee has also 16 17 18 6 The authors refer to “Trapped in Europe’s quagmire”, p. 32. European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland, application No. 29217/12, judgment adopted on 4 November 2014. See communication No. 2379/2014, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 8 July 2016, paras. 4.1-4.3.