CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016 he had received death threats. The present communication has not provided new information as to the author’s credibility and, accordingly, the State party cannot accept the author’s statements as fact. In addition, in her communication to the Committee, the author has not disputed the credibility assessment carried out by the Board. 3.9 On the assessment of credibility in general, the State party refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular regarding the case of R.C. v. Sweden, 1 in respect of which the Court stated the following: “The Court observes, from the outset, that there is a dispute between the parties as to the facts of this case and that the Government have questioned the applicant’s credibility and pointed to certain inconsistencies in his story. The Court acknowledges that it is often difficult to establish, precisely, the pertinent facts in cases such as the present one. It accepts that, as a general principle, the national authorities are best placed to assess not just the facts but, more particularly, the credibility of witnesses since it is they who have had an opportunity to see, hear and assess the demeanour of the individual concerned.” 3.10 In connection with the general human rights situation in Somalia, the State party notes that the author has claimed that, as a single woman without a social network, for that reason alone and owing to her clan affiliation, she would be at risk of gender based persecution in Somalia. The State party notes that the information by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in its position on returns t o southern and central Somalia (June 2014), was known to the Refugee Appeals Board when it decided on the appeal on 1 December 2015 and was taken into account in the Board’s assessment, as were other background documents. A convincing case has not been made that the author has a conflict with her uncle and that she would remain without a male network in Somalia. It is for the author to make a convincing case for the grounds for asylum, but she has failed to meet the burden of proof in the present case. Thus, it cannot be accepted as a fact that the author is a single woman, with no social network. 3.11 The State party adds that, in its judgment in R.H. v. Sweden, 2 the European Court of Human Rights reasoned as follows: “In the Court’s view, it may be concluded that a single woman returning to Mogadishu without access to protection from a male network would face a real risk of living in conditions constituting inhuman and degrading treatment under article 3 of the Convention. ” This judgment, however, in the State party’s opinion, cannot lead to a different assessment in the present case, as the factual circumstances differ considerably. The general conditions in Somalia and the Gedo region are not such that any woman returning there risks abuse. The State party further refers to recent background material from the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2016) and the Federal Office for Immigration of Austria (2015) showing that the author’s home town is now controlled by the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the Somali National Alliance. It also notes that the case law of the Refugee Appeals Board does not require a male network for women returned to Mogadishu. Upon her return to Mogadishu, the author could contact her family and ask for assistance to travel to her home town. 3.12 On the risk of gender-based violence in Somalia, the State party reiterates that the author has failed to make a convincing case that she would be exposed to such real, personal and foreseeable risk in the event of her return. As the author ’s statements on her ground for asylum cannot be considered to be facts, given that it __________________ 1 2 18-20335 See European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden, application No. 41827/07, judgment of 9 March 2010, para. 52. See European Court of Human Rights, R.H. v. Sweden, application No. 4601/14 of 10 September 2015, para. 70. 5/12

Select target paragraph3