No Covenant violation resulting from deportation to Bulgaria based on “first country asylum”

Facts

The author of the communication is Safi Rehman, a national of Afghanistan. He left Afghanistan in fear of persecution. He spent two years in Türkiye and then moved to Bulgaria where he was detained. His psychological state during his detention was poor and conditions were harsh and included physical abuse by police. He left Bulgaria for Serbia and illegally entered Hungary. He was apprehended and stated his wish to apply for asylum. The immigration authorities issued a decision that Bulgaria was responsible for his asylum application based on the principle of “first country asylum” and ordered his transfer there. His challenges of that decision were denied. A foundation for the rehabilitation of torture victims issued an expert psychological opinion indicating that the author was repeatedly a victim of serious inhuman treatment and torture in Bulgaria and suffers from PTSD. The foundation stated that he should be placed in an open reception center and needed psychological therapy, but these recommendations were not implemented. He claims that the State party violated Covenant article 2 (3) (a) regarding the right to an effective remedy and article 7 regarding the prohibition against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Interim measures: The Committee adopted interim measures pursuant to rule 94 of its rules of procedure requesting the State party to refrain from removing the author to Bulgaria while the communication was under consideration. Nonetheless, the author was deported. The failure to respect the interim measures violated article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

Admissibility

The Committee found that domestic remedies have been exhausted. The author raised several risk factors and potential errors during the domestic asylum and court proceedings that, cumulatively, sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 7 and article 2 (3) (a) read in conjunction with article 7.

Merits

First, the author did not substantiate his claim of a real and personal risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of returned to Bulgaria. The fact that he may be confronted with severe difficult circumstances does not mean he would be in a situation significantly different from others deported on the basis of “first country asylum.” During the proceedings, the author failed to provide domestic authorities with sufficient personal information as to why he should not be returned to Bulgaria despite being informed and given the opportunity. The content of the psychological report was prepared after the decision to expel the author was final and was not part of the decision to deport him. Thus, the Committee concluded that the author failed to explain why the decision to expel him was manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee did not find any Covenant violation. However, the extradition of the author pending consideration of the communication in contradiction to the interim measures constituted a Covenant violation of the State party’s obligations.