CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 European Court of Human Rights in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece,10 though admitting that it is not identical to his situation, in which the European Court supported a finding that inappropriate reception conditions as well as serious shortcomings in asylum procedure amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The author submits that unacceptable sanitary conditions, ill-treatment and humiliation have been addressed in the reports of the PRO ASYL11 association and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. He claims that as an asylum seeker returned to Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation, he would likely face a situation in which his asylum procedure in Bulgaria has already been terminated, since in some cases negative decisions have been taken in absentia.12 3.3 Given those circumstances, he fears being transferred to one of the detention facilities, such as the Busmantsi or Lyubimets detention centres. Even if he were not detained, Dublin returnees are likely to be deprived of their right to accommodation, as only those with visible vulnerabilities (e.g., families with children) are provided with reception. He also claims that he would have no access to mental health care, which would result in a serious deterioration of his current condition. Referring to extensive background information on Bulgaria, the author further submits that there is no access to mental health services and no identification procedure for vulnerable asylum seekers, and that the Bulgarian authorities treat asylum seekers with excessive force and brutality. 3.4 In addition, the author claims a violation of article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant, on the grounds that the decision to return him to Bulgaria by the office of immigration and nationality and the judicial review thereof by the Metropolitan Court did not represent an effective remedy. He claims that he was heard only once, at the asylum interview, whereas he was not questioned about his relevant individual circumstances in relation to a potential transfer to Bulgaria during the proceedings before the office of immigration and nationality and the Metropolitan Court. He argues that the arguments given by the Hungarian authorities were purely focused on the Dublin III Regulation and did not examine how the Bulgarian asylum system functions in practice, whether he would have access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure in Bulgaria and whether he would have access to psychological assistance. He argues that the authorities did not carry out a meaningful assessment of his claims and that he was consequently deprived of the opportunity to exercise his right to an effective remedy. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 27 February 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication, arguing that it is inadmissible due to non-substantiation of the author’s claims. 4.2 The State party asserts that the author did not refer to the alleged violation of his rights during the asylum procedure but has only invoked them in the communication. It questions the genuineness of his allegations and argues that even if these were true, the author did not allow the State party’s authorities to consider the claims during the domestic proceedings. It therefore holds that the failure of the author cannot be attributed to the State party. 4.3 The State party notes that the author was interviewed on 28 May 2016 with the assistance of a Dari interpreter. The author’s photograph and fingerprints were taken. He was informed about his procedural rights and obligations, and the information contained in the information sheet on the asylum procedure was explained to him. The author 10 11 12 4 Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 18 to 29 October 2010, Strasbourg, 15 March 2012”, pp. 24–30, and “Report by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his visit to Bulgaria from 9 to 11 February 2015”; and European Council on Refugees and Exiles and European Legal Network on Asylum, “Research note: reception conditions, detention and procedural safeguards for asylum seekers and content of international protection status in Bulgaria”, February 2016 (in which the detention conditions in Bulgaria are assessed to be inhumane or degrading treatment). Application No. 30696/09, judgment of 21 January 2011. PRO ASYL, “Humiliated, ill-treated and without protection”. The author, however, has not applied for asylum in Bulgaria. GE.19-08969