CCPR/C/120/D/2640/2015 valid travel documents. The authors applied for asylum on 31 January 2015 and 3 February 2015, respectively. On 21 April 2015 and 11 June 2015, respectively, the Danish Immigration Service refused the authors’ applications for residence under section 7 of the Danish Aliens Act, pursuant to section 29 of the Aliens Act. On 11 May 2015 and 26 June 2015, respectively, the authors appealed the decisions to the Refugee Appeals Board. On 3 August 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decisions of the Danish Immigration Service to refuse residence to the authors. 4.2 The State party further notes that, in a communication dated 5 August 2015, the authors brought the matter before the Committee, claiming that deporting them to Bulgaria would constitute a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. On 7 August 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board suspended the deadline for the authors’ departure from Denmark until further notice, in accordance with the Committee’s request. 4.3 The State party submits that, in its decision of 3 August 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board stated, with respect to the authors R.I.H., S.M.D. and their two minor children, that it appeared from the first sentence of section 48a (1) of the Aliens Act that, if an alien claimed to fall within section 7 [of the Act], the Danish Immigration Service must make a decision as soon as possible on refusal of entry, transfer or retransfer under the rules of Part 5. Pursuant to section 29, an application for residence under section 7 could be refused if the alien had already obtained protection in a country falling within section 29a (1), i.e. a country covered by the Dublin Regulation. In the case at hand, the Board considered it a fact that the appellants had been granted residence, in the form of subsidiary protection, in Bulgaria. It appeared from the explanatory notes to Bill No. 72 of 14 November 2014 on section 29 of the Aliens Act that refusal of residence under that provision was allowed only if the conditions for considering the relevant country to be a country of first asylum had been met, because the alien had previously obtained protection in that country. One of the requirements for such a refusal of residence was that the alien must be protected against refoulement and that it must be possible for the alien to enter and stay lawfully in the country of first asylum. The personal integrity and safety of the alien must also be protected, but it could not be required that the alien must have the exact same standard of living as the nationals of the country of first asylum. However, it was a requirement under UNHCR Executive Committee conclusion No. 58 that the alien must be treated in accordance with recognized basic human standards in the country of first asylum. 4.4 The State party submits further that, according to its case law, the Refugee Appeals Board examined whether the alien had access to housing and medical assistance, the possibility of employment in the private or public sector, the possibility of settling freely and the possibility of owning real estate. In the present case, the Board determined that it would be possible for the authors to enter and stay lawfully in Bulgaria and that they would be protected against refoulement in that country. The Board observed that, on 13 October 2014, the authors had obtained subsidiary protection in Bulgaria, a member State of the European Union and a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which stipulated compliance with the principle of non-refoulement (art. 33 (1)). 4.5 As regards the general conditions for aliens granted residence in Bulgaria, the Board determined that it would not imply a risk of inhumane or degrading treatment, as referred to in article 4 of the Charter and prohibited by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to refuse entry to the appellants. The Board also determined that the authors’ personal integrity and safety would be protected. 4.6 Concerning the authors’ allegation of xenophobic violence in Bulgaria, the Board indicated that if relevant, the authors would be able to seek protection from the Bulgarian authorities. Moreover, it observed that, judging from the authors’ interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 31 March 2015 and 9 June 2015, they were not referring to any specific conflict with private individuals or authorities in Bulgaria. 4.7 The Board further determined that the general socioeconomic conditions for refugees who were granted residence in Bulgaria could not independently lead to the conclusion that the authors could not be returned to Bulgaria. The Board took into consideration available background information, including a report published by UNHCR 5