CCPR/C/123/D/2768/2016 surrounding woodland or abandoned buildings in harsh weather, which amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. 16 Moreover, refugees are often victims of police brutality, forced to pay bribes, are verbally and physically abused, and are denied access to Serbian territory.17 3.6 The author also alleges that if returned to Serbia, she would be exposed to chain refoulement. She refers to numerous consistent and credible reports of routine pushbacks of asylum seekers to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia without any consideration of their individual situation or the opportunity to claim asylum. 18 Article 33 of the Serbian Asylum Act incorporates the “safe third country” concept, whereby an application may be dismissed without reviewing the merits, unless the asylum seeker can prove that the country is not safe for him or her. That concept is applied systematically, as the list of safe third countries, which has not been updated since 2009, includes all States bordering Serbia and nearly all States that applicants must transit through in order to reach Serbia (including Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 19 and Turkey). It is not based on criteria that establish whether the third country provides a fair and efficient asylum procedure and the availability of effective protection is not examined. She therefore risks being deported to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and then to Greece, without a substantive examination of her application. The systemic deficiencies in the Greek asylum system will put her at risk of chain deportation, violating the principle of non-refoulement. Ultimately, she is likely to end up in her country of origin, where she faces persecution. 3.7 Several international organizations have expressed their concern about the asylum procedure in Serbia and human rights violations. For example, in May 2015 the Committee against Torture urged Serbia to “continue and intensify its efforts to facilitate access to prompt and fair individualized asylum determination procedures in order to avoid the risk of refoulement” and “ensure that the asylum determination procedure provides for a substantive review of applications that respects the principle of non-refoulement, irrespective of whether the country of destination is considered safe”.20 It is also the official position of UNHCR that Serbia is not safe for asylum seekers and it recommends that asylum seekers should not be returned there.21 The European Commission, in its progress report on Serbia in 2014, also pointed out the absence of effective access to the asylum procedure in Serbia and highlighted the need for a comprehensive reform of the asylum system.22 3.8 In Hungary, the author’s asylum application was not examined on the merits because the authorities did not go beyond an assessment of the mere existence of Serbian international obligations and legislative provisions and did not check the actual practice in Serbia. That is not in line with the jurisprudence of the European Court, which noted in 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 or at the nearest police station. Only with a certificate of registration can he or she be accepted into a reception centre and get material assistance, such as food and medical care (articles 39 and 40 of the Law on Asylum). See Amnesty International, “Europe’s borderlands: violations against refugees and migrants in Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary”, p. 43, and Médecins Sans Frontières, Serbia: Asylum seekers and migrants left in cold, 19 February 2015. See Human Rights Watch, “Serbia: police abusing migrants, asylum seekers: beaten, extorted, shoved back across the border” and Amnesty International, “Europe’s borderlands: violations against refugees and migrants in Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary”, p. 32. Ibid. Also see Human Rights Watch, Serbia: Police Abusing Migrants. In its latest assessment of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) concludes that, owing to persistent gaps relating to access to the territory, to the asylum procedure and in the quality of decision-making, the country cannot be considered a “safe third country”. See UNHCR, “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as a country of asylum” (August 2015). See CAT/C/SRB/CO/2, paras. 14–15. See “UNHCR urges Europe to change course on refugee crisis”, 16 September 2015. See also interview with the UNHCR Hungarian spokesperson, 20 September 2015, available at https://refugeecrisisinhungary.wordpress.com/2015/09/20/crisis-and-chaos/, and UNHCR, “Hungary as a country of asylum. Observations on restrictive legal measures and subsequent practice implemented between July 2015 and March 2016” (May 2016). See European Commission, “Serbia progress report”, October 2014. 5