Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016 Consideration of the merits 10.1 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. 10.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that deporting them and their two minor children (a married couple with two minor children, aged 10 and 12 at the time of initial submission) to Bulgaria as the first country of asylum would expose them to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also notes the authors’ argument that during their stay in Bulgaria, they experienced very difficult conditions as they did not receive any form of support from the authorities in relation to finding an accommodation, a job and schooling for their children, and that they would be facing the same socio-economic conditions, including poverty, lack of access to adequate housing, food and access to health care, and of personal safety in Bulgaria, where they did not find any durable humanitarian solutions. They also fear lack of access to 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, which do not meet the standards required by the first country of asylum principle. 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. 10.3 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 articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 30 and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high.31 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, 32 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary, manifestly erroneous or amounted to a denial of justice. 33 10.4 The Committee observes that it is not disputed that Bulgaria granted the authors refugee status on 2 April 2015; that they received residence permits until 17 April 2020; that they stayed in the camp for asylum seekers after receiving refugee status; and that the conditions of the country of a first asylum have been met because the authors have previously obtained protection in Bulgaria and had the possibility to be re-admitted and remain there. The Committee also notes that the Refugee Appeals Board found that the authors did not face any problems with the Bulgarian authorities 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 two weeks up to six months of assisted accommodation is insufficient to enable people to provide for themselves subsequently, 34 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 30 31 32 33 34 X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2, and A.R.J. v. Australia (CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996), para. 6.6. See X v. Denmark, para. 9.2, and X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. Pillai et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/101/D/1763/2008), para. 11.4, and Z.H. v. Australia, (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. Simms v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/53/D/541/1993 (1995)), para. 6.2. X and X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 7.5. AIDA Country Report on Bulgaria, fn. 20. 13