CCPR/C/121/D/2770/2016 assistance from the Greek authorities, they risk labour and sexual exploitation and they are subjected to the extensive use of detention amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment due to the poor conditions of detention, all of which demonstrate the deeply problematic situation refugees are obliged to endure in Greece. 5.4 The author further argues that he has provided the State party with evidence of his real age, including documentary and testimonial evidence, 33 in accordance with the principle of the burden of the proof as established by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 34 According to this principle, the refugee must establish the veracity of his allegations and the accuracy of the facts on which his claims are based.35 He also submits that he has provided a plausible explanation concerning the inaccurate information regarding his age to the Greek and Danish authorities. 5.5 Furthermore, the author indicates that in the light of the explanation and evidence that he produced, he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt, as no current method of age assessment is able to determine a specific age with certainty. 36 Therefore, when there are doubts regarding the age of an asylum seeker, as in the author’s case, according to the principle of the benefit of the doubt he must be treated as a child. In addition, the author indicates that having fulfilled the burden of proof principle by producing evidence confirming that he is a child, the burden of proof becomes shared between him and the State party. The author refers to two decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, according to which once the burden of proof has been discharged, the applicant and the authorities have a shared burden to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts. 37 Thus, if the State party had reasons to question the author’s age, a medical age assessment test should have been undertaken.38 The author recalls that neither the Greek authorities nor the Danish authorities conducted an age assessment test. 5.6 The author further states that his state of health, vulnerability and age are elements that must be evaluated when assessing if Greece would meet the conditions to serve as a first country of asylum. He further sustains that those elements suggest that there is a real risk of ill-treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant if he were to be deported to Greece. Therefore, he indicates that it is essential for the State party to establish his correct age, as minors are more vulnerable to suffering irreparable harm when circumstances such as those of the instant case are present, and reiterates that if he were deported to Greece his rights under articles 7 and 24 of the Covenant would be violated. Additional submission from the State party 6.1 On 16 May 2017, the State party provided further observations. It reiterates that the author has not provided any new information on his initial grounds for asylum. It also reiterates that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under article 7 of the Covenant and that this part of the communication is manifestly ill-founded. With regard to the author’s claims under article 24, the State party reiterates that they are incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant and therefore inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.39 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 The author refers to the Syrian family book and the statements by staff members of his asylum centre in Denmark and by his family network. The author refers to UNHCR, Note on the Burden of Proof in Refugee Claims, 16 December 1998. Available from www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3338.html. The author refers to article 4 (3) (a) of the Council of the European Union resolution of 26 June 1997 on unaccompanied minors who are nationals of third countries (97/C 221/03), available from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31997Y0719(02)&from=EN. The author refers to Gregor Noll, “Junk science? Four arguments against the radiological age assessment of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum”, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 234−250. Available from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/28/2/234/2223300/JunkScience-Four-Arguments-against-the. See J.K. and others v. Sweden (application No. 59166/12), judgment of 23 August 2016, para. 52. The author also refers to R.C. v. Sweden (application No. 41827/07), judgment of 9 March 2010, para. 53. The author refers again to article 4 (3) (a) of the Council of the European Union resolution of 26 June 1997. According to European law, if evidence of the real age is not available or serious doubts persist, an age assessment test may be carried out, in an objective manner. The State party refers again to A.S.M. and R.A.H. v. Denmark, para. 7.5. 9