CCPR/C/127/D/2956/2017 Annex Individual opinion of Committee member Gentian Zyberi (dissenting) General remarks 1. I cannot agree with the Committee’s finding of inadmissibility in the present case. The reason for this is based on the threefold failure of the Austrian authorities in processing the case, namely: first, the failure to adequately take into account the health of the mother; second, the failure to adequately consider the best interests of the five minor children; and third, the failure to comply with the interim measures indicated by the Committee on 14 February 2017, reiterated on 15 March 2017, and the 2 May 2017 decision of the Constitutional Court granting suspensive effect to the authors’ appeal (para. 2.10). My assessment is based on what was known to the Austrian authorities at the time the authors were in Austrian territory, before being removed to Bulgaria. The treatment they received once removed from Austria confirms their claims under article 7 of the Covenant. 2. The authors have raised several claims related to article 7, including about the lack of access to adequate health care for the mother and the father, due to a lack of clarity as to who would have to cover the expenses for treating the father’s leg (para. 6.3), as well as the lack of psychotraumatological treatment for the mother (paras. 2.4 and 3.2). The children were unable to attend school (para. 6.4), as their parents could not accompany them due to their health conditions. The family of seven was living in a single room that could not be locked (para. 6.4). Finally, they also have pointed out that the limited financial support they received from the Bulgarian authorities had ceased (para. 6.4). 3. The lamentable conditions for asylum seekers in Bulgaria are reflected in many documents and reports, which are referred to by the complainants. In that regard, it must be noted that the Dublin Regulation allows a State to take charge of a case and that, while having lifted its recommendation not to carry out transfers to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had urged particular vigilance with respect to the transfer of asylum seekers with specific needs and vulnerabilities. 1 The general situation of this family and their special vulnerability should have prompted the Austrian authorities to handle the case themselves, instead of removing the authors to Bulgaria. Health of the mother 4. From the information on record, it does not appear that the Austrian authorities have conducted an adequate assessment of the authors’ situation. In a clinical report from the Innsbruck University Hospital dated 18 January 2017 it is mentioned that the mother urgently required psychotraumatological treatment and that deportation would be irresponsible from a medical perspective (para. 2.4). Despite that clinical report, on 10 February 2017 the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum requested from the chief physician of the Department on Medical and Health Issues of the Federal Ministry of the Interior an opinion on whether the authors were able to travel. On 13 February 2017, the chief physician concluded that, from a medical perspective, the authors’ removal could be executed (para. 2.7). About a month later, on 16 March 2017, the State party removed the authors to Bulgaria. The clinical report from the Innsbruck University Hospital, which had deemed such deportation irresponsible from a medical perspective, seems to not have been given any consideration. 1 UNHCR, “Bulgaria as a country of asylum: UNHCR observations on the current situation of asylum in Bulgaria”, April 2014, especially p. 17. Available from www.refworld.org/docid/534cd85b4.html. 13