CCPR/C/121/D/2585/2015 everybody be given a job within such a short period of time. The State party further notes that the authors have referred to the problems encountered by other refugees in finding work, but that they did not look for a job themselves. As regards the authors’ allegations that M.A.S. was threatened by private individuals who told him that he should leave the country, the State party notes that they did not contact the Bulgarian authorities to seek protection. 6.5 With respect to the authors’ reference to the Tarakhel case, the State party considers that it cannot be inferred from that case that individual guarantees must be obtained from the Bulgarian authorities before effecting a transfer. Tarakhel v. Switzerland concerned a family with the status of asylum seekers in Italy and the present case is not comparable, as the authors have already been granted subsidiary protection in Bulgaria. The State party further considers that the Tarakhel case, which concerned specifically the reception and accommodation conditions for families with young children in Italy, cannot serve as a requirement for other States to provide individual guarantees to families when they have already been granted subsidiary protection and when the available background material does not allow assuming that aliens risk ill-treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant due to the general conditions in the country. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the authors’ claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the authors have adequately explained the reasons for which they fear that their forcible return to Bulgaria would result in a risk of treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. As no other obstacles to admissibility exist, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that deporting them and their three children to Bulgaria, based on the Dublin Regulation principle of first country of asylum, would expose them to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The authors base their arguments, inter alia, on the treatment they received when they arrived in Bulgaria and after they were granted residence permits, and on the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees in Bulgaria. The Committee notes the authors’ argument that they would face homelessness, destitution, lack of access to health care and lack of personal safety, as demonstrated by their experience after they were granted subsidiary protection in October 2013. The Committee further notes the authors’ submission that since they had already benefited from the reception system when they first arrived in Bulgaria, and as they were granted a form of protection, they would have no access to accommodation in the reception facilities. 12