CCPR/C/118/D/2569/2015 6.8 The State party observes that, according to the information provided by the authors, they managed to support themselves in the circumstances that they faced in Bulgaria as they had savings and received financial support from their family in the Syrian Arab Republic. They also managed to find private accommodation before they left Bulgaria of their own accord. Accordingly, the State party submits that the authors have not provided any specific information as to the rights they could not enjoy as refugees with residence permits. 6.9 The State party further submits that it has no legal obligation to contact the Bulgarian authorities to ensure the authors’ entry and stay in Bulgaria. In that connection, it observes that the judgment of the European Court in Tarakhel v. Switzerland concerned a family with the status of asylum seekers in Italy. It does not therefore deviate from the findings in previous case law on individuals and families with residence permits for Italy, as expressed for example in the decision of inadmissibility of the European Court of Human Rights in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the Netherlands and Italy. Accordingly, the State party reiterates that it cannot be inferred from the Tarakhel judgment that States parties are required to obtain individual guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities before deporting to Bulgaria individuals or families in need of protection who have already been granted residence in Bulgaria. 6.10 The State party maintains that the authors have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of their communication under article 7 of the Covenant and that the communication should be held inadmissible. It reiterates that no substantial grounds have been established for believing that the deportation of the authors to Bulgaria would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Accordingly, the State party requests that the Committee review its request for interim measures in the present case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. It also observes that the authors filed an application for asylum, which was rejected by the Refugee Appeals Board on 20 January 2015. Since the decisions of the Board cannot be appealed, no further remedies are available to the authors. Accordingly, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ claims with respect to article 7 should be held inadmissible for lack of substantiation. However, the Committee considers that for the purpose of admissibility, the authors have adequately explained the reasons for which they fear that their forcible return to Bulgaria would result in a risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In the absence of any other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible, insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 11