CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016Advance unedited version subsidiary protection in Bulgaria face poverty, homelessness and limited access to health care and schooling if they return. Nonetheless, the Committee also notes the State party’s submission that, when interviewed about their stay in Bulgaria, the authors did not present any evidence to have experienced any hardship; that they did not elaborate, during the interviews with the asylum authorities in Denmark, on their experience as regards access to housing, social assistance, medical care and schooling for their children; that the authors and their children were essentially in good health; and that the authors would be entitled, as refugees, to receive the necessary medical treatment if returned to Bulgaria. According to the Board, the authors did not experience any personal conflicts in Bulgaria or significant personal risks that could be timely and reliably established,35 and that the general assumption is that persons granted refugee and protection status in Bulgaria have the same rights as Bulgarian nationals. 10.5 The Committee notes that the authors were granted refugee status and had valid residence permits in Bulgaria, and therefore did not risk refoulement to the Syrian Arab Republic. 10.6 The Committee observes that the material before it, as well as general information in the public domain on the situation of refugees and asylum seekers in Bulgaria, indicates that there may be a lack of available places in the reception facilities for asylum seekers and returnees and that they are often in poor sanitary conditions. It also notes that according to the information before it, returnees like the authors who have already been granted a form of protection and benefited from the reception facilities when they were in Bulgaria, are not entitled to accommodation in the camps for asylum seekers beyond a six-month period from protection status being granted. It further notes that although beneficiaries of protection are entitled to work and enjoy social rights in Bulgaria, its social system is in general insufficient to attend to all persons in need. The Committee, however, notes that the authors were not homeless before their departure from Bulgaria and did not live in destitution. The Committee further observes that, according to their statements made to the Refugee Appeals Board, the authors had access to medical treatment during their stay in Bulgaria. Likewise, the authors have not provided any information that would explain why they would not be able to find a job in Bulgaria or to seek the protection of the Bulgarian authorities in case of unemployment. In that context, the Committee notes that the authors have not submitted sufficient evidence that would adequately substantiate their claim that they would face a real and personal risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, if they are returned to Bulgaria. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the mere possibility of being confronted with difficulties upon their return to Bulgaria does not in itself mean that they would be in a special situation of vulnerability and in a situation significantly different from many other families living in Bulgaria. 10.7 The Committee further considers that although the authors disagree with the decision of the State party’s authorities to return them to Bulgaria as their country of first asylum, they have failed to demonstrate that the decision is manifestly erroneous, clearly arbitrary or constitutes a denial of justice. They have not pointed out any procedural irregularities in the procedures before the Danish Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the removal of the authors to Bulgaria by the State party would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 11. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, is of the view that the authors’ removal to Bulgaria would not violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee, however, is confident that the State party will duly coordinate with the Bulgarian authorities regarding the authors’ removal, inter alia by seeking assurances that the authors’ residence permits in Bulgaria would be renewed. 35 14 There are, however, information on file, which cannot be disclosed.