CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016Advance unedited version 7.4 The authors reiterate that the background information refer to the absence of basic human standards for international protection holders in Bulgaria. On 3 November 2018, the UNHCR Representation in Bulgaria shared its response to a number of questions by the Danish Refugee Council, stating that there is still no integration programme for refugees in Bulgaria as it was suspended in 2014, and that the limited integration opportunities and the lack of support from the Government is a primary challenge for refugees. Two integration centres in Sofia (run by Caritas and UNHCR/Bulgarian Red Cross) provide some assistance and advice. 7.5 Beneficiaries of international protection face a number of legal and practical barriers to accessing housing, exposing them to a risk of homelessness. According to the law, refugees must vacate the reception facilities within 14 days of being notified of a positive decision, as they are no longer entitled to reception assistance. Within this period, they have to find an external address where they can be registered, which is also necessary to obtain their identification documents. This requires finding private housing with a landlord with whom a contract is concluded. Landlords are generally reluctant to rent to refugees. Anti-refugee and xenophobic rhetoric by politicians and media coverage have resulted in the general public’s often negative attitude towards refugees. There are no government programmes to help refugees find accommodation. In some cases, SAR tolerates on an ad hoc basis the stay in reception facilities for up to 6 months of vulnerable refugees who lack alternative options. However, they are not entitled to food. Moreover, beneficiaries of international protection returned to Bulgaria are not eligible for stay at SAR’s reception facilities even on such ad hoc basis. Access to social housing is governed by municipal legislation which imposes conditions that beneficiaries of international protection cannot fulfil, including one of the spouses having to be a Bulgarian national and having resided in the municipality for a certain period (in Sofia, it is 10 years without interruption). 7.6 The AIDA Country Report on Bulgaria states that beneficiaries face acute difficulties in securing accommodation due to the legal circumstances of civil registration. The situation has been exacerbated since the SAR has prohibited beneficiaries from stating the address in the reception centre where they resided during the asylum procedure as domicile for that purpose. It led to corruption practices of fictitious rental contracts. 7.7 Multiple sources express concern regarding the extent of hate speech and hate crimes against refugees and asylum seekers. Negative coverage of migrants appeared in some media, repeating stereotypes that encouraged societal intolerance. On several occasions, mayors refused to register refugees with recognized status, and local residents protested against refugee attempts to settle in their respective locations. 7.8 On 31 May 2017, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed its deep concern at the reported increase in incidents of hate speech and hate crime during the period under review. 25 In November 2018, the Human Rights Committee also raised its concerns about the reports of increased acts of hate speech and hate crimes, particularly against Roma, members of religious minorities, LGBTI persons, migrants and asylum seekers, including racist, xenophobic and intolerant speech. 26 7.9 The authors object to the State party’s assumption that their claim is based on a mere question of reduced socio-economic standards. The past experiences of the authors and the background information show that the 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 and article 24 of the Covenant. Further additional observations by the State party 8.1 On 5 July 2019, the State party submitted that the authors’ further additional comments of 26 March 2019 do not contain any new information regarding the case, beyond the circumstances of the Danish authorities’ examination of the authors’ and their children’s 25 26 10 Concluding observations on the combined twentieth to twenty-second periodic reports of Bulgaria (CERD/C/BGR/CO/20-22), para. 11. Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Bulgaria (CCPR/C/BGR/CO/4), p. 2.