CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016 to specifically address the issue of the Convention in its decision but failed to do so. In addition, some members of the Board voted against the negati ve decision in the author’s case. 4.2 On the merits, the author’s counsel objects that, even if it were to be accepted that her story lacked credibility, the author is nonetheless a single woman from an area in Somalia to which she can no longer return. I n addition to the persecution that she fears from her own family, she also fears other gender-specific forms of persecution by the male-dominated society in Somalia. The strong patriarchal society oppresses women seeking independence with very violent methods, including honour killings. That the author is a single woman in Europe is a clear indication that, by fleeing alone, she has rebelled. In that connection, he refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in R.H. v Sweden (see para. 3.11 above). He disagrees with the State party’s argumentation thereon and notes that the Refugee Appeals Board has not concluded that the author would be able to seek the necessary protection from Mogadishu to travel upon her return. As the author is afraid o f her family, however, she would be unable to secure the necessary support in question. He further argues that the Government and AMISOM control some urban areas, but that the roads are controlled by Al-Shabaab and criminal groups. Arguing that a male relative would travel to Mogadishu to accompany the author suggests that the male in question would put his own life at risk. 4.3 The author’s counsel adds that the author had been forced to marry in Somalia but she refused to do so and fled. A widespread risk of gender-specific violence, including female genital mutilation, forced marriage, rape and other forms of gender specific violence exists in the country. The author has described having been subjected to gender-based violence before she left the country. She claimed clearly that, upon return, she would be exposed to treatment contrary to the Convention. The Refugee Appeals Board, however, made no reference to her claim about the risk of gender-specific violence in its decision. 4.4 He maintains that articles 12 and 15 of the Convention have been violated. With regard to article 12, he specifies that the author has already displayed burn scars and that she fears being subjected to such treatment again, without providing further explanation. Article 15 is said to have been violated as the author “did not get a fair trial” and “something similar could not have happened to a man/boy in the legal system”. State party’s additional observations 5.1 The State party provided additional observations on 26 June 2017. It notes that the author’s claim that she is a single woman fearing persecution by her family cannot be considered to be new information, as she had already claimed that she was a single woman before the Refugee Appeals Board and in her communication. Instead, the claim shows that she disagrees with the Board’s negative decision. With reference to the Board’s decision of 1 December 2015 and to its previous observations, the State party points out that, as a result of the assessment made by the Board, the State party cannot consider it to be a fact that the author will be a single woman without a male network in Somalia, nor that the author was in conflict with her family when she left the country. 5.2 As to the author’s counsel’s reference to R.H. v. Sweden and the argumentation about the author’s ability to seek the assistance of her male relatives for her trip to her home town, the State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board made an addition to its observations of 23 June 2016, in accordance with its usual practice. Thus, the State party has put no interpretation on the Board ’s decision. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights requires no male network for women in 8/12 18-20335