CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016 process, or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the authors would face a real risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant if they were removed.” 3.16 According to the State party, the same guarantees of due process applied in this case. The State party further refers to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in N v. Denmark: 6 “The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of a case, unless it can be established that such an assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. The author has not explained why the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board would be contrary to this standard, nor has he provided substantial grounds to support his claim that his removal … would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee accordingly concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim of violation of article 7 for purposes of admissibility and finds his communication inadmissible. ” 3.17 The State party emphasizes that the Refugee Appeals Board, a quasi -judicial body, made a thorough assessment of the author’s credibility, the background information available and the author’s specific circumstances and found that she had failed to make a convincing case that she would risk persecution or abuse in Somalia. The State party endorses this finding. 3.18 In that connection, the State party also refers to the findings of the Human Rights Committee in, Z. v. Denmark: 7 “In the absence of evidence establishing that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board were manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary with respect to the author’s allegations, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s removal … would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. ” 3.19 The State party recalls that, in the present communication, the author has not brought to bear new, specific information about her situation. Rather, she is seeking to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances reviewed. The State party notes that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of fact made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the case. According to the State party, there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by the Board that the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds to believe that she would be subjected to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of persecution in Somalia and that the necessary and foreseeable consequence of her return is that her rights under the Convention would be violated. Thus, the author’s return to Somalia would not amount to a violation of articles 2 (d), 12 and 16 of the Convention. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The author’s counsel provided comments on 24 February 2017. He first notes the State party’s observation on the substantiation of the communication and claims that that issue seems closely linked to the merits of the case. In any event, that the author is a single woman at risk of being deported to a country that is not a party to the Convention, combined with the background information confirming her fear of being returned there, shows that she has a prima facie case under articles 1, 2 (d), 12 and 15 of the Convention. 8 He reiterates that the Refugee Appeals Board was asked __________________ 6 7 8 18-20335 CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014, para. 6.6. CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014, para. 7.4. Counsel does not refer to article 16 in his comments. 7/12