CCPR/C/118/D/2608/2015 6. While the authors allege that they were victims of two violent incidents (the first upon their arrival in Bulgaria and the second, on an unspecified date and under unclear circumstances when they were en route to the reception centre), they have not adequately explained why they have not complained of these incidents to the Bulgarian authorities (other than referring, in connection with the second incident, to “language barriers” that made them unaware of the existing complaint procedures) (para. 2.3). In any event, there are no grounds in the case file to suggest that the authors would be exposed to a personalized risk of being subject to future attacks upon their return to Bulgaria.f 7. In sum, we consider that although deportation to Bulgaria may put the authors in a more difficult situation than the one confronting them in Denmark, we do not have before us information suggesting that the authors’ future prospects if returned to Bulgaria disclose a real risk of harm severe enough to fall within the scope of article 7. 8. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the decision of the Danish authorities to deport the authors to Bulgaria would entail a violation of article 7 of the Covenant by Denmark. f 16 See, for example, communications No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2, and No. 2366/2014, X v. Canada, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 9.3.