CCPR/C/121/D/2585/2015 8.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (para. 12). The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal42 and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high. 43 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists, 44 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.45 8.4 The Committee notes the finding of the Refugee Appeals Board that Bulgaria should be considered the first country of asylum of the authors, and the position of the State party that the first country of asylum is obliged to provide asylum seekers with basic human rights, although it is not required to provide for such persons the same social and living standards as nationals of the country. The Committee further notes the reference made by the State party to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights according to which the fact that the applicant’s material and social living conditions would be significantly reduced if he or she were to be removed from the contracting State — Denmark — is not sufficient in itself to give rise to breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 46 8.5 The Committee also notes the authors’ submission that they were detained for approximatively 23 days upon their arrival in Bulgaria, during which time they suffered abuse and degrading treatment, and that they were transferred to a reception centre where they lived for around three months in appalling conditions. The Committee also notes the authors’ allegations that their son Y was abused by the police in the reception centre and that they did not receive proper food for their youngest child. The Committee further notes that the authors were then transferred to another reception centre in Sofia, where they stayed for approximatively three months until they were granted residence permits, whereupon they were asked to leave without being provided with alternative accommodation. 8.6 However, the Committee notes that since the authors now have a residence permit, they are not likely to be detained upon arrival, as occurred when they entered Bulgaria in July 2013 without a permit. Nor would they be required to reside in a State-run reception facility. As a result, the Committee does not consider it probable that the authors would face once again the same harsh treatment from the detaining authorities to which they were exposed when they first entered Bulgaria. The conditions in which the authors lived in Sofia after they received their residence permit on 14 October 2013 are more relevant to present risk analysis, as the authors are likely to find themselves upon return to Bulgaria in a similar legal and factual situation. 8.7 The Committee notes in this regard the author’s claims that they managed to find accommodation in Sofia, paying with money received from their family. The Committee also notes the authors’ allegations that they did not feel safe in Bulgaria, that M.A.S. was 42 43 44 45 46 See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See also Committee against Torture, communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008; A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. See communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark; A.R.J. v. Australia; and communication No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. Ibid. See also, inter alia, communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. See M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, para. 249. 13