Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016 good health and that they had not experienced any personal conflicts in Bulgaria, and that they could take up residence in Bulgaria as their country of first asylum. 6.5 The State party reiterates that the female author stated to the Danish Immigration Service both at the asylum screening interview on 14 July 2015 and at the brief consultation interview on 9 March 2016 that she had been sexually harassed by a Syrian man who lived at the refugee centre and that she had distanced herself from him, for which reason it had not happened again. 6.6 As regards the background information on the conditions of recognised refugees in Bulgaria, the most recent information including Country Report: Bulgaria, published by AIDA on 6 February 2017, indicate that recognized refugees are explicitly entitled to equal treatment in rights to Bulgarian nationals with just a few exclusions, such as: participation in general and municipal elections, in national and regional referenda; participation in the establishment of political parties and membership of such parties; holding positions for which Bulgarian citizenship is required by law etc. Individuals granted subsidiary protection (humanitarian status) have the same rights as third-country nationals with permanent residence. From the US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016: Bulgaria (March 2017), it transpires that public education is universal and compulsory until the age of 16 and free through the 12th grade. It also appears that the government adopted rules for concluding integration agreements with persons with refugee status that spell out the basic services – housing, education, language training, health services, professional qualification, and job search assistance – to which they will receive access and the obligations of the responsible institutions. As of 13 June, 61 persons with refugee/humanitarian status had registered with an unemployment office, 11 found jobs, and 10 were placed in training programs. Therefore, the State party still finds that Bulgaria can serve as the country of first asylum for persons granted refugee status or subsidiary protection in Bulgaria. 6.7 The State party further refers to the views adopted by the Committee in B.M.I. and N.A.K. v. Denmark.24 The case concerned the deportation of a married couple and their two minor children to Bulgaria, where they had been granted residence as refugees. The State party finds that the authors have failed to substantiate their claim that they are at a personal and individual risk of suffering treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has recognised that, although persons granted refugee status or subsidiary protection may possibly be confronted with difficulties in their country of first asylum, this does not imply that they would be in a special situation of vulnerability on return to their country of first asylum. The State party recalls that the general conditions of refugees granted residence in Bulgaria, including families with children, are not of such nature that Bulgaria cannot serve as a country of first asylum. The Board accepted that the authors’ personal situation or previous experiences in Bulgaria cannot lead to a conclusion that they would not be able to take up residence in Bulgaria again as their country of first asylum. 6.8 Therefore, the deportation of the authors and their children to Bulgaria will not be contrary to articles 7 and 24 of the Covenant. Authors’ comments on the merits 7.1 On 26 March 2019, the authors submitted comments on the State party’s observations from 18 August 2017. 7.2 As the State party’s request to lift interim measures was denied on 5 May 2017, the authors did not make further comments in relation to the issue of admissibility. 7.3 Although the factual circumstances are different from the case of Warda Osman Jasin et al. v. Denmark, the authors claim that they will risk a violation of their rights under article 7 of the Covenant, since the Bulgarian authorities have previously failed to protect the family’s personal integrity and the newest background information shows that recognized refugees still face immense difficulties. Additionally, the authors’ minor children have experienced the war in Syria, the dangerous escape from Syria and the hardship in Bulgaria, and should thus be considered extremely vulnerable. 24 B.M.I. and N.A.K. v. Denmark, paras. 8.3 and 8.6 – 8.7. 9