CCPR/C/118/D/2569/2015 Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that deporting them and their two minor children to Bulgaria as the first country of asylum would expose them to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the authors base their arguments on, inter alia, the socioeconomic situation they would face, including the lack of access to financial help or social assistance and to integration programmes for refugees and asylum seekers, as demonstrated by their experience as asylum seekers and after they received refugee status and residence permits, as well as by the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees in Bulgaria. The Committee further notes the authors’ submission that since they already benefited from the reception system when they first arrived in Bulgaria and as they were granted refugee status, they would have no access to reception facilities upon their return to Bulgaria; they would not be able to find accommodation and a job; and therefore they would face homelessness and be forced to live with their minor children on the streets. 8.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 26 and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high. 27 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists,28 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.29 8.4 The Committee observes that it is not disputed that Bulgaria granted the authors refugee status in March and April 2014, respectively; that they received residence permits; and that they were able to stay in the camp for asylum seekers for several months after receiving refugee status until they rented a flat of their choice. The Committee also notes that the Refugee Appeals Board found that the authors did not face any problems with the Bulgarian authorities or with individuals in Bulgaria and that they would enjoy the necessary social rights if they were returned to Bulgaria. The Committee further notes that the authors relied on reports on the general situation of asylum seekers and refugees in Bulgaria, according to which the six months of assisted accommodation is insufficient to enable people to provide for themselves subsequently,30 stating that it is extremely difficult for people who have been granted protection status and are returned to Bulgaria to find accommodation and a job; and that persons who have been granted refugee status or subsidiary protection in Bulgaria face poverty, homelessness and limited access to health 26 27 28 29 30 12 See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2, and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See X v. Denmark, para. 9.2, and communication No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4, and No. 1957/2010, Z.H. v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, ibid. and communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. See X and X v. Denmark.