CCPR/C/118/D/2569/2015 5.7 The authors therefore argue that their claim is admissible and that they have provided sufficient reasons for justifying their fear of being returned to Bulgaria, as it is not suited to serve as the country of first asylum. The authors assert that the Refugee Appeals Board did not give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk that they would face if removed to Bulgaria. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In its additional observations of 17 May 2016, the State party refers to its observations of 4 August 2015. As regards the authors’ reference to the report by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the State party observes that it has been included in the background material of the Refugee Appeals Board since 2 September 2015 and was thus taken into account in the assessment of the case by the Board. 6.2 In relation to the section on Bulgaria of the report published by Amnesty International in 2015, entitled The State of the World’s Human Rights, the State party also submits that the information provided in the paragraph referred to by the authors was also taken into account in the assessment of the case by the Refugee Appeals Board. 6.3 As to the authors’ reference to the Committee’s Views in Jasin et al. v. Denmark, according to which States parties need to give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk a person might face if deported, the State party considers that this jurisprudence requires an individualized assessment of the risk faced by the author, rather than reliance on general reports and assumptions. 6.4 In that connection, the Government of Denmark considers that Jasin et al. v. Denmark differs from the case at hand on essential points: it concerned the deportation to Italy of a single mother with minor children, whose residence permit for Italy had expired, whereas in the present case the deportation under review concerns a married couple with minor children to Bulgaria. Furthermore, the residence permit held by the adult author in Jasin et al. v. Denmark had expired when she applied for asylum in Denmark, whereas the authors in the case at hand were in possession of valid residence permits for Bulgaria at the time of their application for asylum, and continue to hold such residence permits. The State party further observes that the Bulgarian authorities have informed the Danish authorities that the authors were granted refugee status in Bulgaria on 17 March 2014. In the opinion of the Government, the two cases are therefore not comparable. 6.5 The State party further submits that the general background information available to the Refugee Appeals Board is obtained from a wide range of sources and is compared with the statements made by the relevant asylum seekers, including their past experiences. In the present case, the authors have had the opportunity to make submissions both in writing and orally before several bodies and the Board thoroughly examined their case, taking into account in detail all the information available. 6.6 The State party notes that the authors have provided no new information on the health of the female author. It therefore refers again to the background information described previously, according to which the female author will be able to receive the necessary medical treatment in Bulgaria. 6.7 The State party further submits that the circumstance that the authors did not manage to find work during the three or four months that they stayed in Bulgaria after being granted residence cannot lead to a different assessment. It observes that, according to the information provided, the authors did not request assistance from the authorities. Moreover, it is not reasonable to require that everybody be given a job within such a short period of time. 10