Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016 applications for asylum, and the authors’ communication of 15 July 2016 and observations of 28 February 2017. The State party hence refers to its observations of 23 December 2016 and additional observations of 18 August 2017. 8.2 As regards the authors’ reference to various background reports on the conditions for refugees in Bulgaria, the State party argues that the Board has a comprehensive collection of general and regularly updated background material on the situation in countries to which asylum-seekers can be returned if their individual applications for asylum in Denmark are refused pursuant to section 29b of the Aliens Act. Such materials by the Board contain information on the conditions for refugees in Bulgaria, including the “Questions for UNHCR Bulgaria regarding the situation for asylum seekers and refugees in Bulgaria – UNHCR Response”, referred to by the authors in their additional observations, as well as more recent reports such as AIDA: Country Report: Bulgaria, January 2019 (last updated 13 February 2019), US Department of State: Bulgaria 2018 Human Rights Report, 12 March 2019 and Global Detention Project: Country Report – Immigration detention in Bulgaria: Fewer Immigrants and Refugees, More Fences, April 2019. 8.3 The information put forward by the authors on the conditions for refugees in Bulgaria has been subject to the Board’s evaluation, however the referred material does not provide any information showing that the general conditions in Bulgaria have changed in a way leading the Board to change its decision of 18 July 2016. The State party added that the referred UNHCR document only contains information on the general conditions in Bulgaria, not concerning this specific case. 8.4 As regards the alleged lack of access to effective integration programmes and risk of homelessness due to a lack of accommodation upon their return to Bulgaria, the State party reiterates its observations of 23 December 2016, and attaches the updated information on refugee integration measures and social services available to refugees in Bulgaria from the State Agency of Refugees in Bulgaria. In case an alien with granted international protection wishes to sign an integration agreement with a Mayor of municipality who has applied for conclusion of such agreement, the Mayor provides assistance for accommodation within the frames of his competence (para. 4.10). 8.5 The State party observes that, due to the Committee’s request to refrain from deporting the authors while their case is under consideration by the Committee, the authors – despite being recognized as refugees in Bulgaria, have at present been staying in Denmark for almost three years since having their application for asylum decided on in two instances by the Danish authorities. It recalls the fact that the authors’ Bulgarian residence permit expires on 17 April 2020. Therefore, the Government respectfully requested the Committee to consider the admissibility and merits of the case in a timely manner, allowing the case to be resolved while the authors’ Bulgarian residence permit is still valid. 8.6 The authors’ additional observations do not contain information that would preclude them from taking up residence in Bulgaria as their country of first asylum. Therefore, it will not constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant to deport the authors and their children to Bulgaria. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 9.2 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. 9.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2)(b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and 11