CCPR/C/120/D/2640/2015 7.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. It also observes that the authors filed an application for asylum, which was rejected by the Refugee Appeals Board on 3 August 2015. Accordingly, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ claims with respect to article 7 should be held inadmissible for lack of substantiation. However, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the authors have adequately explained the reasons why they fear that their forcible return to Bulgaria would result in a risk of treatment that would be in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. As no other obstacles to admissibility exist, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required by article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that deporting them and their four children, two of whom are minors, to Bulgaria on the basis of the Dublin Regulation principle of “first country of asylum” would expose them to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the authors base their arguments on, inter alia, the socioeconomic situation they would face, notably the lack of access to financial or social assistance and to integration programmes for refugees and asylum seekers, as well as by the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees in Bulgaria. The authors have contended that they would have no access to social housing or temporary shelters; that they would not be able to find accommodation or jobs and would therefore face homelessness and be forced to live on the streets; and that they would be exposed to acts of a xenophobic nature and left without protection. 8.3 The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal28 and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high.29 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists, 30 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.31 28 29 30 31 Communications No. 2007/2010, J.J.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2, and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See also Committee against Torture communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. See J.J.M. v. Denmark, para. 9.2, and communication No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4, and No. 1957/2010, Fan Bao Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. 11