CCPR/C/125/D/2901/2016 contrary to his assertion. Similarly, during his asylum interview on 17 June 2016, he did not raise any objections to the Urdu interpretation provided, and stated that his date of birth was 1 January 1998 and that his real name was the name under which he had been registered by the State party’s authorities. The author also signed the translated transcript of the interview. Thus, before both the police and the asylum authorities, the author made the same statement concerning his date of birth, and accepted the interpretation and the translated transcript provided. 4.3 It was only later, on 23 June 2016, that the author filed a statement indicating that he was underage, and requesting transfer to an open reception centre. In view of the information stated above, however, there was no reason to doubt the date of birth previously provided by the author. In further petitions filed on 30 June and 30 August 2016, the author provided the asylum authority with documents issued under a different last name. He stated that he had not told the truth about his name or his date of birth, and that his real date of birth was 14 July 2000. No similarity could be identified between the photos in the new documents provided, and the photo of the author in the asylum database. The asylum authority thus questioned the authenticity of the documents. The Administrative and Labour Court of Győr, in its final decision, reaffirmed the asylum authority’s opinion that the author should not be considered a child, deeming that the asylum authority had assessed the available documents in accordance with the law. 4.4 The author did not raise his claim of post-traumatic stress disorder or unsatisfactory health before the asylum authority. On one occasion, he mentioned that he was stressed due to his detention, but did not mention any other reasons for his stress, including any reasons that had arisen before his arrival in Hungary. 4.5 During his interview with the police, the author stated that he had left Pakistan for economic reasons and due to unemployment. He said that he had not faced threats, violations or degrading treatment on the grounds of race, religion or ethnic origin. One day later, during his interview before the asylum authority, he stated that the Taliban had killed his brother, and that he had left Pakistan due to “the Taliban threat”. In response to a question as to whether he had any health problems, he stated that he had no problems and was healthy. Due to the inconsistencies in his assertions regarding his state of health and his personal data, the asylum authority considered that his good faith and credibility were questionable. It thus rejected his request for an age-determination process to be carried out, at government expense. At the same time, the asylum authority accepted the expert opinion, and with due regard to the author’s vulnerability, terminated his detention. 4.6 The communication is also inadmissible as an abuse of the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, because the fact that the author has left his assigned accommodation in Hungary for an unknown location indicates a lack of good faith and cooperation on his part. 4.7 In further observations dated 3 July 2017, the State party reiterates that because the Immigration and Asylum Office withdrew both its decision attributing responsibility for the author’s asylum case to Bulgaria and its decision concerning the author’s removal, the communication is unfounded and is therefore inadmissible. Concerning the author’s argument that the State party exposed him to a risk of irreparable harm, the State party observes that the Covenant does not guarantee that an individual cannot be “exposed to the danger of being expelled” to a country where she or he would be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Rather, the Covenant guarantees against expulsion of an individual to a country where he or she, upon return, would face the risk of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Thus, because the author is not subject to removal by the State party, his claim under article 7 of the Covenant is not arguable. 4.8 During his asylum interview, the author did not complain of any abuse, threats or discrimination in Bulgaria; such claims would have justified a finding that his removal to Bulgaria would be unlawful. The author had an opportunity to invoke these alleged circumstances and to submit evidence, both during administrative proceedings and in his request for review of the decision of the Immigration and Asylum Office. 5