CCPR/C/118/D/2569/2015 and the protection of holders of refugee status after leaving the registration and reception centres, is dependent on their employment and income, but also on their family status. 15 In general, refugee families, in particular those with young children, find that landlords have a positive attitude towards them. To date, no family has ever been forced to leave the registration and reception centres without first having been provided with accommodation, or at least with the funds to rent somewhere to live. In the same perspective, the State party objects to the authors’ allegations that, if deported to Bulgaria, they will have no way of accessing a minimum living standard, owing to the absence of accommodation, meaning that they will most likely have to live on the streets with their children. 4.6 In relation to the issue of access to health-care services and medical treatment, the State party asserts that, according to the available background information, refugees in Bulgaria have access to health-care services under the same conditions as Bulgarian nationals and medical treatments are free if the asylum seekers or refugees register with a general practitioner.16 The State party therefore considers it a fact that the authors will have access to the necessary health-care services and treatment in Bulgaria. It also submits that, according to the statement by N.A.K. at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, the authors had been told by a doctor that their daughter was physically alright, but that she was feeling mentally unwell and that N.A.K. herself was fine. It also appears from the medical record appended to the authors’ communication of 6 February 2015 that both children had been attended by a health visitor, who considered them healthy. 4.7 In relation to the authors’ claims of insufficient access to education for their children, the State party asserts that beneficiaries of international protection and asylum seekers under the age of 18 have access to education under the same conditions as Bulgarian nationals. However, before being enrolled in Bulgarian municipal schools, refugee and asylum-seeking children must successfully complete a language course. Attending primary school is free of charge. 4.8 As to the authors’ claims of lack of protection against acts of racism, the State party notes that the Bulgarian authorities have addressed and condemned racist attacks and rhetoric. The State party therefore considers that the authors are able to seek protection from the Bulgarian authorities if they experience such acts. 17 4.9 The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights according to which the assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights must necessarily be a rigorous one and inevitably requires that the Court assess the conditions in the receiving country against the standard of that provision of the Convention. The Court also stated that aliens who were subject to expulsion could not in principle claim any entitlement to remain on the territory of a contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance and that in the absence of exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds against removal, the fact that the applicant’s material and social living conditions would be significantly reduced if he or she were to be removed from the contracting State party was not sufficient in itself to give rise to a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 18 Further, the 15 16 17 18 See, for example, UNHCR, “Where is my home?” See, for example, “Bulgaria as a country of asylum”, p. 12; “Trapped in Europe’s quagmire”, p. 16; and Bulgarian Council on Refugees and Migrants “Monitoring report on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection in the Republic of Bulgaria in 2014”, p. 51. See, for example, “Bulgaria as a country of asylum”, p. 14, indicating that on 14 February 2014, following the attack on the Dzhumaya Mosque in Plovdiv, the Government condemned the attack and published a second joint declaration calling for guarantees of civil, ethnic and religious peace. See, for example, Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy, paras. 68, 70 and 71. 7