Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016 her asylum-screening interview on 14 July 2015 that she had chosen to continue her journey from Bulgaria because she had a male and a female cousin in Denmark. She had felt lonely in Bulgaria and had wanted to live closer to members of her family. The authors further stated that conditions at the refugee centre had been hard to endure because of the poor sanitation and the lack of privacy, and the food had been inedible. In that regard, the Board found that the personal situation and previous experiences in Bulgaria of the authors and their children could not lead to the conclusion that reference could not be made to the authors’ possibility of taking up residence in Bulgaria as their country of first asylum. The Board found that, although difficult, the general socio-economic conditions of refugees granted residence in Bulgaria cannot independently lead to the conclusion that the authors and their children cannot be refused entry to Denmark and returned to Bulgaria as their country of first asylum. 4.8 The female author stated to the Danish Immigration Service both at the asylum screening interview on 14 July 2015 and at the brief consultation interview on 9 March 2016 that she had been sexually harassed by a Syrian man who lived at the refugee centre in Bulgaria and that she had distanced herself from him, for which reason it had not happened again. She was also duly informed prior to both interviews conducted by the Danish Immigration Service that the Service and interpreter involved were bound by a duty of confidentiality and that the authorities would not pass on information to anybody, including her spouse, without her consent. The State party still finds that the female author has failed to give a reasonable explanation why she only gave the information on further sexual harassment at the second interview conducted by the Danish Refugee Council (counsel) in July 2016, one week prior to the scheduled deportation to Bulgaria. 4.9 As regards the background information on the conditions of recognised refugees in Bulgaria, the information indicates that recognised refugees are explicitly entitled by law to be treated equally with Bulgarian nationals with just a few exceptions. Individuals granted subsidiary protection (humanitarian status) have the same rights as third-country nationals with permanent residence. Once issued, a residence permit gives access to all types of work and social benefits, including unemployment benefits, although it is difficult to find a job in practice because of language barriers and a high unemployment rate. The persons with refugee status have access to health insurance, although they must pay for it. Public education is universal and compulsory until the age of 16 and free through the 12th grade. It also appears that the government adopted rules for concluding integration agreements with persons with refugee status that spell out the basic services – housing, education, language training, health services, professional qualification, and job search assistance – to which they will receive access and the obligations of the responsible institutions. 4.10 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 submits, inter alia, that in case a returned 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, and in accordance with article 9 and article 14 of the Ordinance for the Conclusion, Implementation and Termination of the Integration Agreement of Foreigners with a Granted Asylum or International Protection. 4.11 The State party observes that the authors are a married couple with two minor children who do not suffer from any disease requiring therapy, and therefore do not belong to a particularly vulnerable group. In addition, they have valid residence permits for Bulgaria. The Board made a thorough assessment of the authors’ specific circumstances and the background information available and found that the authors had failed to render it probable that they would risk persecution or abuse justifying asylum or that they were particularly vulnerable, thereby risking a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, in case of their deportation to Bulgaria. The authors have had the opportunity to make submissions to several bodies and the Board has thoroughly examined the authors’ case on the basis of those submissions, finding that the general conditions of refugees granted residence in Bulgaria, including families with children, are not of such nature that Bulgaria cannot serve as a country of first asylum. The Board also found that no information had been provided about the personal situation of the authors and their children, and it could base its decision only on the information provided by the authors about their experiences in Bulgaria when interviewed 5