CCPR/C/121/D/2585/2015 before their departure from Bulgaria; they did not live on the streets; and their situation with three children must be distinguished from that of the author in the decision in Jasin et al. v. Denmark, which concerned a single mother of three minor children, suffering from a health condition and holding an expired residence permit. 48 The fact that they may possibly be confronted with serious difficulties upon return, in the light of the past traumas suffered by all members of the family, in particular the children, by itself does not necessarily mean that they would be in a special situation of vulnerability — and in a situation significantly different to many other refugee families — such as to conclude that their return to Bulgaria would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 7 of the Covenant.49 8.13 The Committee further considers that although the authors disagree with the decision of the State party’s authorities to return them to Bulgaria as a first country of asylum, they have failed to explain why this decision is manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary in nature. Nor have they pointed out any procedural irregularities in the procedures before the Danish Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the removal of the authors to Bulgaria by the State party would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the authors’ removal to Bulgaria would not violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee is confident, however, that the State party will duly inform the Bulgarian authorities of the authors’ removal, in order for the authors and their children to be taken charge of in a manner adapted to their needs, especially taking into account the age of the children. 48 49 See communication No. 2640/2015, R.I.H. and S.M.D. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 13 July 2017, para. 8.6. Ibid. See also communication No. 2569/2015, B.M.I. and N.A.K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 28 October 2016, para. 8.6 (deportation to Bulgaria). 15