Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016
The complaint
3.1
The authors claim that by expelling them to Bulgaria, Denmark would violate their
rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The State party must not remove the applicants to
another state if “there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of
irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.”3
3.2
Due to the authors’ prior experience, the authors fear that a return to Bulgaria will
expose them, and especially their minor children, to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary
to the best interest of the child, as they would face homelessness, destitution, lack of food
and access to health care and risks to their personal safety in Bulgaria, where they did not
find any durable humanitarian solutions. They also fear to face the risk from traffickers who
smuggled them. Therefore, there are substantial grounds for believing that their removal to
Bulgaria would create a real risk of irreparable harm for the authors and their children, in
violation of article 7 of the Covenant.
3.3
They refer to the decision by the Committee in Warda Osman Jasin et al. v Denmark,
which found that returning a single mother “left without shelter nor means of subsistence” to
Italy, where she was previously granted subsidiary protection, violated article 7 of the
Covenant. The Committee found that “despite being granted a residence permit, she was
faced on two occasions with indigence and extreme precarity”. The authors claim that their
return to Bulgaria would expose them, and in particular their minor children, to inhuman or
degrading treatment, contrary to the best interest of the child, as they face a real risk of being
left in the streets without any assistance from the Bulgarian authorities.4
3.4
The authors refer to the background reports5 to substantiate their claims of no proper
reception conditions or State assistance for asylum seekers and refugees in Bulgaria. The
information presented strongly indicate that there is no effective integration program for
refugees, or persons with subsidiary protection status, in place in Bulgaria and that they face
serious poverty, homelessness and limited access to health care. According to national law,
this group of people would have access to the labour market, health care system, social
service and assistance in finding housing. In practice, however, it is almost impossible for
this group of people to find work or a place to live. In order to access social services, refugees
are required to provide an address, which is also impossible for most of them. In addition,
Bulgaria faces serious problems of xenophobic violence and harassments and the violent
actions are often unaddressed by the authorities. This endangers the safety of asylum seekers
and refugees, and puts them at serious risk of being subjected to racist motivated violence,
against which they cannot seek an effective protection from the Bulgarian authorities.
3.5
The authors, who are Syrian nationals and have two minor children, have already
endured hardship during the flight to Europe and in their home country, and are therefore
extremely vulnerable. In that context, they claim that their children also risk a violation of
their rights under article 24(1) of the Covenant, to be read in conjunction with article 3(1) of
the Convention of the Rights of the Child.6
3.6
They further refer to the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s interpretation of
vulnerability: “An important element to consider is the child’s situation of vulnerability, such
as disability, belonging to a minority group, being a refugee or asylum seeker, victim of abuse,
living in a street situation, etc. The purpose of determining the best interests of a child or
children in a vulnerable situation should not only be in relation to the full enjoyment of all
the rights provided for in the Convention, but also with regard to other human rights norms
3
4
5
6
General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to
the Covenant (2004), para. 12; General Comment No. 20: Prohibition of torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1992), para. 9.
Warda Osman Jasin et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014), para. 8.8.
Country of origin reports by UNHCR, Amnesty International, AIDA, European Council on Refugees
and Exiles (ECRE) etc.
Article 3 stipulates that “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private
social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best
interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.
3