CCPR/C/118/D/2569/2015 Court stated that article 3 could not be interpreted as obliging the high contracting parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home, nor did it entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living.19 4.10 In addition, the State party submits that it cannot be inferred from the judgment of the European Court in Tarakhel v. Switzerland that individual guarantees must be obtained from the Bulgarian authorities in the case at hand, before it is possible to transfer the authors.20 The Refugee Appeals Board, after assessing the authors’ specific circumstances and the available background information, found that they had failed to render it probable that they were in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if deported to Bulgaria. In that regard, the State party recalls the jurisprudence of the Committee that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists. 21 The State party further submits that the authors have not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process, or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account.22 4.11 The State party observes that in the present case, all due process guarantees were applied to the authors. It considers that the authors merely disagree with the assessment of their specific circumstances and the background information that was made by the Refugee Appeals Board in their case, and that they are trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of their case reassessed by the Committee. The State party therefore maintains that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the authors’ case. 4.12 The State party further claims that the assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board was not arbitrary and does not amount to a denial of justice, and therefore there is no basis for questioning its assessment, according to which the authors have failed to establish that they would be in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if deported to Bulgaria. In view of the above, the State party submits that the deportation of the authors to Bulgaria will not constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In their comments of 19 November 2015, the authors maintain that their deportation to Bulgaria will constitute a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. The authors assert that they would face inhuman and degrading treatment by being forced to live in the streets with no access to housing, food or sanitary facilities, and no prospect of finding durable humanitarian solutions. 5.2 In relation to the question of whether Bulgaria can serve as their country of first asylum, the authors argue that the most recent background information regarding refugees with temporary residence permits establishes that Bulgaria cannot provide basic humanitarian conditions for refugees. The authors argue that, as a minimum, a refugee must 19 20 21 22 8 See M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, para. 249. The judgment concerned the refusal of the Swiss authorities to examine the asylum application of an Afghan couple and their six children because Italy was already considering their application. See, for example, communication No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3. See, for example, communication No. 2186/2012, X and X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5.