CCPR/C/120/D/2640/2015 the deportation of the authors to Bulgaria would not constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In their comments of 11 April 2016, 24 the authors maintain that their deportation to Bulgaria would constitute a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. The authors assert that they would face inhuman and degrading treatment by being forced to live in the streets with no access to housing, food or sanitary facilities and no prospect of finding a durable humanitarian solution. 5.2 The authors stress that the assessment of a first-asylum claim includes not only the principle of non-refoulement, but also the assessment whether the person with international protection is permitted to remain there and to be treated in accordance with recognized basic human standards until a durable solution is found for them, as stated in UNHCR Executive Committee conclusion No. 58. The authors submit that the Refugee Appeals Board has failed to undertake a thorough assessment of the risk that they would face in case of deportation to Bulgaria and, in particular, to establish whether they would be treated in accordance with recognized basic human standards. The mere fact that Bulgaria is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights is not an automatic indication that the country complies with that Convention. 5.3 The authors further stress that the Board has already determined, in the past, that families with minor children are in a particularly vulnerable situation. From October 2014 to September 2015, the Board assessed 72 cases of applicants with refugee status or subsidiary protection status in Bulgaria. The Board granted asylum in 11 of these cases, based on the vulnerable status of families, along with the lack of essential support and medical treatment in Bulgaria. Therefore, the Board not only has the possibility of granting protection to families in need of special care, but has actually done so. 5.4 With respect to the State party’s claim that the authors did not experience homelessness, the latter stress that they had nowhere to go when they were forced to leave the asylum centre, and found themselves in a situation where they were forced into secondary movement, inter alia because of homelessness. 5.5 As for medical care, the authors stress that the Refugee Appeals Board has, in several decisions, established that there is a lack of appropriate medical support in Bulgaria. The fact that the family has, or has not, already requested or needed medical assistance or health care is immaterial when assessing whether a lack of appropriate medical support may expose them to a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. The authors add that refugees’ access to health care is restricted in Bulgaria. General access depends on prepaid insurance, which is not covered by the State. Even where a refugee has paid for the health insurance, he or she still has to pay for medicines and psychological treatment, which may be vital for traumatized refugees and torture victims. 25 In addition, because of the administrative workload and prejudice against refugees, only 4 out of 130 general practitioners have agreed to add refugees to their patient lists. 5.6 The authors stress that the cumulative effect of their experiences amounts to a wellfounded fear of treatment in breach of article 7 of the Covenant. They reiterate that racially motivated crimes against minorities are not prosecuted in Bulgaria, being treated by the authorities as hooliganism.26 5.7 As for children’s education, the authors note that the Bulgarian Council on Refugees and Migrants reported in 2014 that only 45 refugee children were enrolled in the Bulgarian municipal school system, while a total of 825 refugee children were registered in Bulgaria. 24 25 26 As of this date, the authors were represented by Advokatkompagniet. [A valid power of attorney is on file.] The authors refer to a report by Förderverein PRO ASYL, Erniedrigt, Misshandelt, Schutzlos: Flüchtlinge in Bulgarien (April 2015), p. 34. Available from https://www.proasyl.de/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/150415_Bulgarienbericht.pdf. Amnesty International, Missing the Point: Lack of Adequate Investigation of Hate Crimes in Bulgaria (February 2015), p. 27. 9