CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016Advance unedited version Asyl report published in December 2015 states that there is a likelihood of homelessness and lack of effective access to medical support for international protection holders.18 5.8 According to Amnesty International’s World Report for 2015/16: There continued to be no integration plan for recognized refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection. Although the government adopted the National Strategy on Migration, Asylum and Integration for 2015-2016 in June, it failed to follow-up with an Action Plan that would implement the Strategy. The Asylum Information Database (AIDA) country report on Bulgaria of October 2015 documents a complete absence of integration support: All newly recognised individuals have been finding themselves without accommodation, social support medical insurance and vocational training just a few days after their recognition. Many vulnerable categories such as unaccompanied minors, elderly, ill and disabled are exposed to a real risk of homelessness and destitution.19 The AIDA country report states that a policy of zero integration has existed since 2014. 5.9 Available background information demonstrates that recognised international protection holders returned to Bulgaria are excluded from accommodation in reception centres. In the recent communication of R.A.A. and Z.M. v. Denmark, the Committee noted that holders of international protection returned to Bulgaria faced an insufficient integration system.20 While the State party’s observations insist that the authors have formal access to support from the Bulgarian state, the Committee has repeatedly emphasized that states parties should show how a residence permit would protect authors returned to a first country of asylum.21 It is therefore likely that the authors will not have effective access to any integration support if returned to Bulgaria. This will expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment, including threats to the female author’s personal integrity, homelessness and destitution, in violation of article 7. 5.10 In conclusion, they recall that their claim is not based on a mere question of reduced socio-economic standards, but the risks for them go well beyond. Relevant background information shows that on-the-ground conditions for international protection holders in Bulgaria do not meet the standards required by the first country of asylum principle and expose the authors to a real risk of ill-treatment in violation of article 7. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 18 August 2017, the State party reiterated its initial arguments of inadmissibility and lack of merits. 6.2 As regards the authors’ comments of 28 February 2017, and a relation to article 24 of the Covenant, the State party observes that the authors’ reference to the Committee’s decision in A. and B. v. Denmark is incorrect. In that case, the Committee found that the authors’ removal to Pakistan would not violate their rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, for which reason the Committee found no reason to examine the authors’ claim under article 18 of the Covenant.22 6.3 As regards the authors’ reference to Warda Osman Jasin et al. v. Denmark23 that the State party did not explain how the author’s residence permit would protect her and her three minor children from the hardship and state of destitution she had already experienced in Italy, the State party observes that the authors of the case at hand did not experience any hardship in Bulgaria. The Government finds that no meaningful comparison can be made between the case at hand and Warda Osman Jasin et al. v. Denmark. The case at hand concerns the deportation to Bulgaria of a married couple with two minor children. 6.4 Concerning the authors’ personal situation and experiences during their stay in Bulgaria, the Board accepted as facts that the authors and their children were essentially in 18 19 20 21 22 23 8 Pro Asyl, Humiliated, ill-treated and without protection: Refugees and asylum seekers in Bulgaria, page 34. AIDA National Country Report – Bulgaria, October 2015, page 13. R.A.A. and Z. M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015), para. 7.5. Warda Osman Jasin et al. v. Denmark, para. 8.8. A. and B. v. Denmark, para. 8.6. CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014.