CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015 Annex Joint opinion of Committee members Yuval Shany, Yuji Iwasawa, Photini Pazartzis, Anja Seibert-Fohr and Konstantin Vardzelashvili (dissenting) 1. We regret that we are unable to join the majority on the Committee in finding that, in deciding to deport the authors to Bulgaria, Denmark would, if it implemented the decision, violate its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 2. According to the well-established case law of the Committee, States parties are obliged not to deport persons from their territory “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, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed.” 44 Not every exposure to personal hardship in the country of removal would, however, fall within the scope of the removing State’s non-refoulement obligations.b 3. With the possible exception of those individuals who face special hardships due to their particular situation of vulnerability, c which renders their plight exceptionally harsh and irreparable in nature, non-availability of social assistance or delays in access to medical services do not constitute in themselves grounds for non-refoulement. A contrary interpretation, recognizing all individuals facing problems in accessing social services as potential victims of article 7 of the Covenant, has little support in the case law of the Committee or in State practice and would extend the protections of article 7 and the nonrefoulement principle (which are absolute in nature) beyond breaking point. 4. Although we supported the Views adopted by the Committee in Jasin v. Denmark,d the facts in that case were significantly different from the facts of the present case and do not warrant the same legal conclusion. In Jasin v. Denmark, the author, as a single mother of three small children whose residence permit had expired while in Italy and who was suffering from health problems, would have been left upon deportation in a situation threatening her and her children’s existence. Under these exceptional circumstances, we were of the view that, without specific assurances, Italy could not be considered a “safe country” of removal for the author and her children. 5. In the present case, it is not disputed that, as recognized refugees, the authors are entitled to receive social assistance in Bulgaria on similar terms to those available to Bulgarian nationals. They may also lawfully work to support themselves and their one child, and while it has been shown that one of the authors suffers from a heart condition, it has not been shown that this actually limits his ability to work or that his condition cannot be adequately treated in Bulgaria. e 44 b c d e General comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See communication. No. 265/87, Vuolanne v. Finland, Views adopted on 7 April 1989. See communication No. 2360/2014, Jasin v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 2015. Ibid. The evidence on file suggests that one of the authors suffers from non-obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and should be subject to routine monitoring of his heart condition under effort conditions. 15