CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016Advance unedited version are de facto available to the authors.27 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the communication due to non-exhaustion of available domestic remedies as the authors made an appeal against the negative asylum decision to the Refugee Appeals Board, which was pending when the authors submitted their communication to the Committee on 16 July 2016.28 The Committee notes the authors’ argument that the decision of the Danish Immigration Service, which rejected their asylum applications on 1 June 2016 and ordered the family to leave Denmark immediately, was appealed to the Board on 6 July 2016; however, the appeal did not have a suspensive effect. The Committee observes that the authors’ deportation to Bulgaria was scheduled for 19 July 2016, due to which the authors held that no further domestic remedies were available, and that the State party did not contest this argument. In such circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has not demonstrated that there would be additional remedies in this case that were effective and available to the authors. Accordingly, the Committee finds that it is not precluded from examining the communication by the requirements of article 5 (2)(b) of the Optional Protocol. 9.4 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that a State should refrain from removing a person not only where that person would face a risk to life or torture, but also in case of a risk of very serious or “flagrant” violation of his/her rights under article 24(1) of the Covenant. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s objection that the authors’ claims under article 24 (1) of the Covenant are inadmissible ratione materiae as returning the family with minor children to the first country of asylum would not amount to a risk of irreparable harm in violation of the best interests of the authors’ children. The Committee observes the author’s argument that the Committee has never comprehensively addressed to what extent irreparable harm resulting from violation of Covenant rights other than articles 6 and 7 may give rise to the non-refoulement obligation. The Committee, however, also observes that the authors did not present specific arguments on the situation of their children when they stayed in Bulgaria from October 2014 to May 2015, and that they pointed out to the perceived vulnerability of their children due to general risk factors, without indicating specific risks for their children that could be considered real or foreseeable, if removed to Bulgaria. The Committee recalls that article 2 of the Covenant entails an obligation for States parties not to deport 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 in the country to which removal is to be effected.29 In this connection, the Committee notes that the authors do not provide sufficient information about real and foreseeable risks for their children that would enable the Committee to conclude that the removal of children to Bulgaria would amount to an irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their claim under article 24(1) for purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.5 The Committee notes that the admissibility of the authors’ claims under article 7 has not been disputed by the State party. 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. 27 28 29 12 See e.g. Patiño v. Panama (CCPR/C/52/D/437/1990), para. 5.2; P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5; Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany (CCPR/C/82/D/1188/2003), para. 7.2; Gilberg v. Germany (CCPR/C/87/D/1403/2005), para. 6.5; Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4; and Singh et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/125/DR/2948/2017), para. 6.4. The Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Danish Immigration Service on 18 July 2016. See the General Comment No. 31, para. 12, or Ch.H.O. v. Canada (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012), para. 9.5.