CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 2.5 Because of the dire conditions, the author left the refugee camp on 19 May 2016 and crossed the border to Serbia. On 26 May 2016, he entered Hungary and applied for asylum on 28 May 2016. The author was heard by the office of immigration and nationality on the same date, stating that he had entered the European Union through Bulgaria. Accordingly, the office of immigration and nationality requested Bulgaria to accept its responsibility under the Dublin III Regulation (art. 18 (1) (b)). The author only had one short interview before the decision was delivered, during which he was not asked any question in relation to Bulgaria and was not given any opportunity to react to the potential applicability of the Dublin III Regulation to his case. The author challenged the decision but did not have legal assistance in doing so. On 17 October 2016, the Metropolitan Labour and Administrative Court confirmed the decision of the office of immigration and nationality. 2.6 The author has family in Budapest: two aunts with refugee status; an uncle and his wife under subsidiary protection; and 15 cousins. Three of his cousins have already been granted Hungarian citizenship. He is currently staying with family in Budapest. After receiving the decision of 17 October 2016 of the Metropolitan Court, the author sought treatment at the Cordelia Foundation for the Rehabilitation of Torture Victims in Budapest. On 11 November 2016, a psychiatrist at the Foundation issued a medical opinion regarding the author’s health status. 6 According to the medical certificate, the author suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and panic disorder, with fear and anxiety attacks. It also indicates that the author has no psychotic symptoms, although he suffers from flashbacks. According to the certificate, the author needs regular medical and psychotherapeutic treatment. It confirms that the author’s sense of security is strengthened by staying with his relatives in Hungary. The author is currently receiving regular therapy from the Foundation. According to his psychiatrist, the author needs continuous therapy and stable support from his family. 2.7 Since there is no further legal remedy against the decisions of the Metropolitan Court in asylum judicial review procedures (Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum (as amended, 2016), sect. 53 (5)), the author claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies. The author has not submitted the same matter for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his removal to Bulgaria would amount to a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, as he would face a real risk of irreparable harm due to inhuman and degrading treatment there. The author recalls the Committee’s general comments No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (para. 9) and No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant (para. 12), in which the Committee declares that States parties should not deport individuals to third countries where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.7 3.2 The author claims that if returned to Bulgaria, he would in all likelihood be detained since Bulgaria routinely detains asylum seekers, sometimes in combination with deliberate deprivation of food and liquids.8 Therefore, he fears that he will face an irreparable harm due to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment.9 He refers to the decision of the 6 7 8 9 GE.19-08969 The certificate has been submitted together with the initial communication. See also Kindler v. Canada (CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991), para. 6.2; and X. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. See Asylum Information Database, Country Report: Bulgaria, 2017 update. See also PRO ASYL, “Humiliated, ill-treated and without protection: refugees and asylum-seekers in Bulgaria” (Frankfurt, Germany, December 2015). See European Court for Human Rights, Budina v. Russia, application No. 45603/05, decision of 18 June 2009, in which the Court considered that inaction on the part of the State party in the face of severe conditions may amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under article 3 of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). See also Asylum Information Database, Country Report: Bulgaria, 2017 update; Council of Europe, “Report to the Bulgarian Government on the visit to Bulgaria carried out by the European 3