CCPR/C/120/D/2640/2015 can seek protection from the relevant authorities, should they experience any problems of a racist nature. Their reported past experiences of fearing a group called the “Bald Ones” cannot change that assessment. Besides, the authors themselves have not experienced any problems with that group or similar groups. 4.18 As regards the submission about insufficient access to education and schooling, the State party notes that available information indicates that asylum seekers under 18 years of age have access to education on the same conditions as those applicable to Bulgarian nationals.22 However, before being enrolled in Bulgarian municipal schools, refugee and asylum-seeking children must successfully complete a language course. Attending compulsory school is free of charge. 4.19 Concerning the authors’ allegations that, if deported to Bulgaria, they will not have access to accommodation, and that they will thus most likely have to live on the streets with their children, the State party refers to the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy (application No. 27725/10). The Court stated in that decision that the assessment whether there were substantial grounds for believing that an applicant faced a real risk of being subjected to treatment that would be in breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights must necessarily be a rigorous one and inevitably required that the Court assess the conditions in the receiving country against the standard of that provision of the Convention. In that connection, the Court further stated (paras. 70 and 71), that the mere fact of return to a country where one’s economic position would be worse than in the expelling Contracting State was not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by article 3 of the Convention; that article 3 could not be interpreted as obliging the High Contracting Parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home; and that the provision did not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living. 4.20 Regarding the authors’ reference to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland, the State party is of the opinion that it cannot be inferred from this judgment that individual guarantees must be obtained from the Bulgarian authorities in the case at hand, which concerns the transfer of a family already granted protection status in Bulgaria. 4.21 As for the Committee’s Views in the case of Jasin et al. v. Denmark, the State party distinguishes the facts of that case from those of the present case, noting that the former concerned a single woman with minor children, whose residence permit for Italy had expired. The case at hand concerns the deportation of a family consisting of a mother, a father and their two minor children, as well as two adult children, who all still hold valid residence permits for subsidiary protection in Bulgaria. In the opinion of the State party, the cases are therefore not comparable. 4.22 The State party therefore submits that the Refugee Appeals Board took into account all relevant information in its decision and that the communication has not brought to light any information substantiating the assertion that the authors risk such persecution or abuse on their return to Bulgaria as would justify granting them asylum. It recalls the Committee’s established jurisprudence,23 according to which important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it was found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In the present case, the State party submits that the authors are trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to reassess the factual circumstances advocated in support of their claim for asylum. There is no basis for challenging the assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board, according to which the authors failed to establish that there were substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if deported to Bulgaria. Against that background, the State party submits that 22 23 8 Ibid. See P.T. v. Denmark (communication No. 2272/2013,Views adopted on 1 April 2015), para. 7.3; K. v. Denmark (communication No. 2393/2014, Views adopted on 16 July 2015), paras. 7.4 and 7.5.