CRC/C/77/D/3/2016 advance unedited version and the author was therefore unable to challenge. The author adds that the UNICEF statistics cited by the State party (see para. 4.11) are based on a survey and therefore the figures are unreliable. 5.4 The author insists that the RAB decision of February 2016 did not contain any reference to the Convention, which is a violation of its own. Also, on the DIS website there is a list of applicable international treaties, which does not include the Convention. 5.5 The State party was obliged to take the best interests of the child into account when adopting its decision. She claims that the European Court of Human Rights has considered that deporting single women to Somalia without a male network violates the European Convention on Human Rights because of the general security situation. 5.6 The author notes that the Committee should not “allow” the State party to correct a RAB decision, and that it should examine whether the February 2016 decision violated the Convention. 5.7 The author reiterates her claim regarding the lack of appeal. She notes that, even though the case was reopened by the RAB she was not invited to a new hearing and she instead received a new decision without being given the opportunity to challenge it. Additional submissions from the parties 6 In its observations dated 2 March 2017, the State party notes that the author and her daughter failed to appear at the accommodation centre allocated to them, even though the RAB had suspended the time limit for their departure until the Committee reached a decision on the case. On 7 February 2017, the RAB had contacted the DIS and the National Operational Aliens Centre of the North Zealand Police to inquire about the author and her daughter’s whereabouts. Both agencies informed the RAB that they were not aware of the author and her daughter’s whereabouts. The Police further informed that they were deemed to have left Denmark. On 10 February 2017, the RAB contacted the author’s counsel, who also informed not being aware of the author’s whereabouts. Since the RAB considered it a fact that the author and her daughter had left Denmark, the State party argues that they are no longer under the Danish jurisdiction and that the daughter is no longer a victim of a potential violation of the Convention. Therefore, the communication is inadmissible under rule 13 (1) of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, or alternatively, it should be discontinued under rule 26 of these Rules.12 7 On 10 April 2017, the author’s counsel notes that the State party is unable to establish that the author and her daughter are no longer in Denmark. The fact that they are no longer at the asylum centre does not suffice as a reason to automatically conclude that they have left Denmark. Even if they were no longer in Denmark, this would not suffice to preclude jurisdiction.13 8 On 18 May 2017, the State party insists that the author and her daughter had a right to remain in Denmark for the duration of the proceedings before the Committee. Also, under section 42a(1) of the Danish Aliens Act, an alien who is staying in Denmark and lodges an application for residence will have the expenses for his or her maintenance and any necessary healthcare services covered by the DIS. The DIS decides on the accommodation and may 12 13 8 The State party cites the Human Rights Committee’s discontinuance decisions in MRR v Denmark (communication No. 2440/2014) and BNA v Denmark (Communication No. 2468/2014), which were based on the fact that the authors’ whereabouts had become unknown. In this regard, the author notes that both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture have adopted decisions finding cases admissible, or even finding violations of the respective treaties, where the authors had already been returned to their country of origin.