CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016 5.7 As regards the author’s counsel’s reference to article 15 in his previous submission, the State party notes that no such claim has been made previously. The author has also not substantiated a claim that she did not benefit from the same guarantees of due process as male asylum seekers throughout the asylum process. The State party thus finds it irrelevant to comment further on this part of the communication, which should be considered inadmissible, as manifestly ill -founded. 5.8 The State party reiterates that the communication should be considered inadmissible under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, as manifestly ill -founded. Should the Committee consider the communication admissible, the State party maintains that no violation of articles 2 (d), 12, 15 and 16 of the Convention would occur on the merits in the event of the author’s forcible return to Somalia. Issues and proceedings Consideration of admissibility 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 66 of its rules of procedure, the Committee may decide to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. 6.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee i s satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes that the author claims a violation of her rights under articles 2 (d) and 16 of the Convention and to have exhausted available domestic remedies and that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on those grounds. The Committee observes that, under Danish law, no appeals against decisions of the Refugee Appeals B oard can be lodged before the national courts. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from considering the matter. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s subsequent claims under articles 12 and 15, as the author has displayed burn scars in the past and feared similar such attacks in Somalia and as she did not receive a fair trial and benefit from the same guarantees as male asylum seekers (see para. 4.4 above). In the absence of any other explanations or information in that connection, the Committee considers that part of the communication to be insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and, accordingly, inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee recalls the author’s claim that the Danish refugee authorities have failed to assess her case from the perspective of the Convention, even though her counsel has asked them specifically to do so, and that her forcible return to Somalia will constitute a violation by Denmark of articles 2 (d), 12, 15 and 16 of the Convention. She fears persecution from her family as she had refused to forcibly marry an older man and maintained a relationship with an acquaintance, and als o because, as a single women in a patriarchal society, she would be exposed to gender based persecution and abuses and would not be able to travel safely from Mogadishu to her home town as the roads are controlled by Al-Shabaab or criminal groups. 6.6 The Committee refers to its general recommendation No. 32, pursuant to which, under international human rights law, the non-refoulement principle imposes a duty on States to refrain from returning a person to a jurisdiction in which he or she may face serious violations of human rights, notably arbitrary deprivation of life or torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (para. 21). The Committee recalls, in particular, that gender-related claims to asylum may intersect with other proscribed grounds of discrimination, including age, race, ethnicity/ 10/12 18-20335