CCPR/C/127/D/2956/2017 8.5 The authors recall that in X v. Denmark, the Committee considered that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk that individuals might face following their removal. 26 The authors also recall Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark, in which the Committee observed that the experiences of the removed person in the first country of asylum under the Dublin Regulation may underscore special risks that they are likely to face and may thus render their return to the first country of asylum a particularly traumatic experience.27 The authors note that, in Hashi v. Denmark, the Committee considered that it had been incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the authors would face in Italy, rather than rely on general assumptions and reports.28 The author, in that case, had claimed difficulties in accessing sufficient food and medical care in Italy, to have been undernourished, to have fainted often and to almost have had a miscarriage.29 8.6 The authors submit that their case is similar to that of the authors in Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark and Hashi v. Denmark in that they too experienced inhuman treatment in the country of first asylum and serious harm after their removal from Austria. They claim to have been extremely vulnerable and maintain that the State party did not examine their claim that they would face unbearable living conditions in Bulgaria. Issues and proceedings before the Committee State party’s failure to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 94 of its rules of procedure 9.1 The Committee notes that the adoption of interim measures pursuant to rule 94 of its rules of procedure, in accordance with article 1 of the Optional Protocol, is vital to the role entrusted to the Committee under that article. Failure to respect the interim measure requested by the Committee with a view to preventing irreparable harm undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Covenant. 9.2 As indicated in paragraph 19 of the Committee’s general comment No. 33 (2008) on the obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol, failure to implement interim measures is incompatible with the obligation to respect in good faith the procedure of individual communications established under the Optional Protocol. The Committee is therefore of the view that, by failing to respect the request for interim measures transmitted to the State party on 14 February 2017 and reiterated on 15 March 2017, the State party failed in its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors did not exhaust domestic remedies, as they filed the present communication while their appeal against the rejection of their asylum applications was still pending before the Federal Administrative Court, after which the authors could have appealed to both the Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that such remedies must be considered effective because, while an appeal against a firstinstance rejection of an asylum application does not automatically suspend removal under the Dublin Regulation, the State party would have been under the obligation to immediately take back the authors in case of an outcome favourable to them. 26 27 28 29 X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2. Y.A.A. and F.H.M. (CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015), para. 7.7. Hashi v. Denmark (CCPR/C/120/D/2470/2014), para. 9.10. Ibid. 11