Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016 refoulement obligations, nor has it taken the position that non-refoulement claims based on other articles are per se incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant.10 5.4 The Committee’s jurisprudence in this area establishes that deportation can give rise to a real risk of irreparable harm under Covenant rights independent of articles 6 and 7.11 The Committee’s jurisprudence further shows that it is possible for deportation to give rise to a real risk of irreparable harm under a number of Covenant rights in conjunction with articles 6 and 7. In A. and B. v. Denmark, the Committee found the authors’ claim that deportation to Pakistan would create a real risk of irreparable harm under article 18 due to their adherence to the Ahmadi Muslim faith admissible.12 In a similar vein, General Comment No. 35 relating to article 9 provides that deportation to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that the individual faces a real risk of a severe violation of liberty or security of person, such as prolonged arbitrary detention, may, in extreme cases, violate article 7 of the Covenant. 13 The authors claim that the act of deportation to Bulgaria would violate Denmark’s obligations under article 24(1) as there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm to the minor authors, and this claim should be admissible. 5.5 The authors also argue that a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility has been made as sufficient evidence was submitted.14 They have submitted a claim outlining the real risk of ill-treatment in breach of article 7 if returned to Bulgaria, supported by both previous personal experience in Bulgaria and background information on the situation of asylum seekers and refugees in the country. The Committee has recently found two communications regarding the return of Syrian nationals to Bulgaria as first country of asylum under article 7 admissible, in R.A.A. and Z.M. v. Denmark and B.M.I. and N.A.K. v. Denmark.15 5.6 As regards the State party’s denial of a real risk of ill-treatment in violation of article 7 on the basis that Bulgaria constitutes the first country of asylum, it is reiterated that the female author was sexually harassed there. International jurisprudence and guidance recognises that a sense of shame or fear of stigma inhibits disclosure of relevant information in the asylum procedure.16 5.7 As regards basic human standards for international protection holders in Bulgaria, the State party repeatedly refers to the existence of an integration system in Bulgaria; however, background information demonstrates that this is effectively non-existent. The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) reported in February 2016: There is no integration support, a status quo which has lasted for two years. Temporary accommodation in the reception centres is only for a duration of three months and does not include the most basic amenities. Any form of budget for integration has been consistently delayed and as a consequence recognised status holders find themselves without accommodation, social support, medical insurance and vocational training. 17 A Pro 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A.S.M. and R.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014),individual opinion of Committee members Sarah Cleveland and Nigel Rodley, para. 6. D.T. v. Canada (CCPR/C/117/D/2081/2011), para. 8. A. and B. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2291/2013), para. 7.4. Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 35, article 9 (Liberty and security of person), 16 December 2014 (CCPR/C/GC/35), para. 57. A.A.I. and A.H.A. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014), individual opinion of Sarah Cleveland and Fabian Salvioli. R.A.A. and Z. M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015), and B.M.I. and N.A.K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/118/D/2569/2015). UNHCR, Proof Beyond: Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems (2013) 72; H. Baillot, S. Cowan, V. Munro, Research Briefing: Rape Narratives and Credibility Assessment (of Female Claimants) at the AIT, April 2012. ECRE/ELENA Research Note: Reception conditions, detention and procedural safeguards for asylum seekers and content of international protection status in Bulgaria, February 2016, para. 38. 7