CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016 cannot be considered a fact that she had been forcibly married to an older man and that she had a relationship with another man before her marriage, the State party believes that these circumstances do not entail that the author would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence or abuse by her family, authorities or other parties in Somalia. The State party also notes that the fact that the author has been subjected to female genital mutilation does not in itself justify asylum and does not lead to de facto future gender-based violence. 3.13 The State party next observes that, as far the author’s clan affiliation is concerned, that she belongs to the minority Ashraf clan cannot in itself lead to a different assessment of the circumstances of her case. Background material from the Home Office of the United Kingdom (2015) indicates that in “areas of south and central Somalia outside Mogadishu, dominant clans may retain an ability to provide protection to its members and members of minority groups with which it has established a relationship/links”. 3.14 The State party adds that the fact that the Refugee Appeals Board did not explicitly refer to the Convention in its decision of 1 December 2015 does not mean that the Board failed to take into consideration whether the author risked abuse, contrary to the right to protection under the Convention. The major part of the decision of the Board refers only to provisions of the Aliens Act and not to the underlying conventions on which the protection set out in the Danish provisions is based and which Denmark is obliged to observe. 3 3.15 According to the State party, in the present case, the Refugee Appeals Board has taken into consideration all the relevant information. The present communication has not brought to light new information substantiating that the author would risk persecution or abuse justifying the granting of asylum. The State party refers to the views of the Human Rights Committee in P.T. v. Denmark: 4 “The Committee recalls its jurisprudence 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.” The State party also notes that, in its views in Mr. and Ms. X v. Denmark, 5 the Human Rights Committee noted: “The authors’ refugee claims were thoroughly assessed by the State party’s authorities, which found that the authors’ declarations about the motive for seeking asylum and their account of the events that caused their fear of torture or killing were not credible. The Committee observes that the authors have not identified any irregularity in the decision -making __________________ 3 4 5 6/12 The author adds that, according to the explanatory bill amending the Aliens Act, “the intention of the proposed provision is that residence permits should only be issued to aliens who — in cases other than those falling within the 1951 Refugee Convention — have a right to protection under the international conventions to which Denmark has acceded. The proposed provision is therefore drafted in accordance with the relevant convention s, including in particular the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol 6 thereto, as well as article 3 of the International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Thus, any assessment of claims under section 7 of the Aliens Act must be made not only pursuant to article 3 of the European Convention and article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, but also pursuant to other relevant conventions. When relevant, the Refugee Appeals Board takes into account the issue of whether the asylum seeker risks being subjected to abuse in the context of discrimination against women. The assessment under section 7 of the Aliens Act also comprises t he risk of gender-specific abuse, including female genital mutilation. Thus, in the event of her return to Somalia, the author would not risk persecution or abuse, and it would not constitute a violation of articles 2 (d), 12 and 16 of the Convention or ge neral recommendation No. 32. CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013, para. 7.3. CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012, para. 7.5. 18-20335