CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016 Mogadishu. Given that no new information on the author’s family ties has been provided, the State party continues to believe that the author has a male network that would be able to offer her protection. 5.3 On the allegation that the Refugee Appeals Board has fail ed to take the Convention into consideration in its assessment, as it made no explicit reference to the provisions of the Convention in its decision, the State party notes that that issue has been examined by the Committee in a number of cases submitted by the same counsel. 9 It quotes the Committee’s decision in K.S. vs. Denmark, in which it stated that the Committee also took note of the author’s claims that the Danish immigration authorities had failed to consider her case from the perspective of the Conv ention and to mention the Convention in their decision, even though the matter had been raised both orally and in writing by her counsel during the Refugee Appeals Board hearing. The Committee takes note of the State party’s reply that the Convention is a source of law in Denmark and forms an integral part of the assessments made by the Board in asylum cases. The Committee observes that the author ’s lawyer requested the immigration authorities to consider her asylum claim in the light of the Convention, without referring to specific provisions of the Convention and without substantiating her claims under any specific articles of the Convention. 5.4 On the author’s counsel’s contention to the effect that a minority group of the Refugee Appeals Board members did not accept the negative decision of the Danish Immigration Service, the State party refers to paragraph 6.3 of the Committee ’s decision in K.S. v. Denmark: with regard to the remarks regarding the minority of the members of the Board, the State party notes that the author repeatedly speculated about the facts and findings on which the dissenting members of the Board based their opinion. It observes that, pursuant to rule 40 of the rules of procedure of the Board, decisions of the Board are made by simple majority and that the Board’s deliberations are confidential. Pursuant to rule 41 of the Board ’s rules of procedure, a case note on the result of the deliberations must be prepared immediately after the end of the deliberations and is not confidential. The State party notes that there is no obligation under the Convention to make public the opinion held by the minority of the Board members; no such obligation follows from Danish law either. 5.5 The State party observes that the general situation in Somali a, including the situation of women, is not such that all returnees risk abuse falling within the scope of section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. The State party refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in R.H. v. Sweden and to recent background information, including the report by the Danish Immigration Service and the Danish Refugee Council entitled “South and central Somalia: security situation, al-Shabaab presence, and target groups”. It transpires from this information that the author’s home town is under the control of AMISOM. 5.6 The State party adds that, in her comments of 24 February 2017, the author submitted that Denmark had violated article 12 of the Convention, as she had previously displayed burn scars and that she feared furthe r attacks if returned to Somalia. The State party notes that the author submitted no information about scars throughout her asylum proceedings or in her initial communication to the Committee. No information has been provided to the effect that the scars were inflicted in connection with the conflict in Somalia, as suggested by the author, nor that she fears suffering further attacks. Accordingly, the State party rejects this part of the communication. __________________ 9 18-20335 The State party refers to P.H.A. vs. Denmark (CEDAW/C/65/D/61/2013), K.S. vs. Denmark (CEDAW/C/65/D/71/2014), X. vs. Denmark (CEDAW/C/71/D/73/2014), A.O.D. vs. Denmark (CEDAW/C/70/D/84/2015), S.F.A. vs. Denmark (CEDAW/C/69/D/85/2015) and K.I.A. vs. Denmark (CEDAW/C/68/D/93/2015). 9/12