CCPR/C/120/D/2640/2015 in December 2013, 12 which indicated that individuals who had been granted refugee or protection status in Bulgaria enjoyed the same rights as Bulgarian nationals. It also appears from a report on the asylum system in Bulgaria published by the Danish Refugee Council that, once issued, a residence permit gives access to the labour market and social benefits, including unemployment benefits, although it is difficult to find a job in practice because of language problems and a high unemployment rate. It follows from a memorandum on the conditions for asylum seekers and refugees in Bulgaria, drafted by the Danish Refugee Council in November 2014 on the basis of meetings with Bulgarian non-governmental organizations, that individuals with refugee status have access to health insurance, although they have to pay for it. Furthermore, it appears from a report published by UNHCR in December 2014 13 that, under Bulgarian legislation, alien beneficiaries of international protection are entitled to the same social assistance and services as Bulgarian nationals, and they also have the same health-care rights and the right to health insurance of their own choice. 4.8 According to the Refugee Appeals Board, the housing situation of refugees was often difficult because the latter did not obtain financial support, and municipal housing required that at least one member of the family must hold Bulgarian nationality and that the family must have been registered in the municipality concerned for a specified period. Children of refugees granted international protection had access to schooling, but on the condition that refugee children had successfully completed a language course and that the family was registered at a definite address. 4.9 In the light of the above background information, the Refugee Appeals Board found no basis to set aside the assessment made by the Danish Immigration Service that the authors’ personal integrity and safety would be protected in Bulgaria, where the socioeconomic conditions must be considered adequate. Accordingly, the Board determined that it would not be contrary to article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to deport the authors to Bulgaria. 4.10 The State party recalls that the authors were granted residence in Bulgaria in November 2014. It also notes that, after spending four months at the asylum centre, the authors were given a residence permit valid for three years. It considers that the authors have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility of their communication under article 7 of the Covenant, as they have not been able to show substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if deported to Bulgaria. The communication is therefore manifestly ill-founded. 4.11 Should the Committee find the authors’ communication admissible, the State party submits that the authors have not sufficiently established that it would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant to deport them to Bulgaria. The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence setting the threshold for the risk, which must be real and personal.14 According to the State party, the authors did not produce any substantial new information or views on their circumstances beyond the information which was already relied upon in their asylum proceedings. 4.12 The State party recalls that, when considering whether a country can serve as a country of first asylum under the Dublin procedure, the Refugee Appeals Board requires, as an absolute minimum, that the relevant asylum seeker must be protected against refoulement, and that his or her personal integrity and safety must be protected in the country of first asylum, which includes certain socioeconomic considerations. However, it cannot be required that the relevant asylum seekers must have completely the same social living standards as the country’s own nationals. 12 13 14 6 UNHCR Regional Representation for Central Europe, Refugee Integration and the Use of Indicators: Evidence from Central Europe (Budapest, 2013). UNHCR, Monitoring Report on the Integration of Beneficiaries of International Protection in the Republic of Bulgaria (Sofia, 2014). The State party refers to the Committee’s Views in communication No. 2007/2010, J.J.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2.