CCPR/C/119/D/2593/2015 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.13 7.4 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has acknowledged the author’s change of gender and the fact that she may have been detained in the past. However, both the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board thoroughly examined the author’s claims and evidence presented, but found the allegations of detention and, in particular, sexual abuse to be poorly substantiated and inconsistent on several grounds, including the number, time and location of the alleged incidents and the number of perpetrators. In this regard, the Committee notes that the author described those incidents in a generic manner in her communication. Regarding the alleged criminal proceedings against the author under sharia law and the threats of imprisonment made in 2012 as a result, the Board also reviewed the sharia court documents presented by the author but noted that the charges against her had not been pursued since April 2012 and that, between that date and her final departure in January 2014, the author had frequently travelled abroad without ever experiencing any difficulties, and that she had not been detained or otherwise harassed during that time. In the light of these trips abroad, the Board also questioned the author’s claim that the reason for delaying her departure until January 2014 was her lack of financial means. 7.5 The Committee notes that the author has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. While the author has challenged the factual conclusion reached by the Danish immigration authorities, she has not explained how the proceedings before these authorities were arbitrary or otherwise amounted to a denial of justice. 7.6 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee cannot conclude that the removal of the author to Malaysia would constitute a violation of her rights under article 7, read in conjunction with articles 17 (1) and 26, of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Malaysia would not violate her rights under article 7, read in conjunction with articles 17 (1) and 26, of the Covenant. 13 Ibid. 7