CEDAW/C/69/D/85/2015 4.7 The State party further asserts that no valid doubts can be raised with regard to the company that conducted the language test, as argued by the author. The issue with regard to the reliance on and criticism of such tests in proceedings involving asylum seekers from Somalia in the United Kingdom was the weight given by the courts to those tests and not the credibility of the company conducting them. 4.8 As to the author’s position with regard to how the presence of her child d uring the substantive interviews had an adverse impact on the statements that she gave, the State party points out that the reports of those interviews were translated by the interpreter, reviewed by the author and then signed. The author stated explicitly that she had no supplementary comments to make on the reports. At no point during those interviews did she express any confusion. The State party adds that the author had the option of requesting a babysitter during the interviews and, therefore, was not obliged to have her child accompany her. 4.9 With regard to the author’s contention that the above circumstances should be considered a separate violation of the Convention, because women with small children are disadvantaged compared with men, who are never placed in such distracting and stressful situations, the State party observes that that submission has not been further substantiated and that no reference has been made to the specific provisions of the Convention that the author deems to have been vio lated. 4.10 As a result, the State party agrees with the Board ’s decision of 8 April 2015, which was taken after a thorough assessment of the author ’s credibility, the background information available on Somalia and the specific circumstances of the case at hand. After analysis of those factors, the Board did not establish the risk of persecution or abuse and no grounds for asylum were found. 4.11 With regard to the author’s claim that the Board failed to consider whether she risked exposure to gender-based violence if returned to Somalia, the State party submits that, for the reasons explained in paragraph 4.10, the author is not found to be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender -based violence or abuse, including honour killing, by her family. It observes in this respect that the fact that the author was subjected to female genital mutilation prior to her departure from Somalia does not independently justify granting asylum, nor can the circumstance that she is a woman with a child independently lead to an alternative assessment of the risk of future gender-based violence. 4.12 Moreover, the State party finds that it cannot be considered a fact that the author would be a single woman with no social network upon her return to her country of origin, since, as she stated several times, including at the asylum screening interview on 11 February 2014 and at the substantive interview on 23 May 2014, her brothers and parents still live in Somalia. 4.13 The State party further observes that the general situation in Somalia, including that of women, is not such that all returnees risk facing abuse falling within the meaning of section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. 9 It refers to a publication by the Swedish Migration Agency, 10 in which it is reported that the only part of Somalia not under Government control is southern Somalia (controlled by Al -Shabaab), to the fact that a language analysis test indicated with a high degree of certainty that the author ’s linguistic background was linked to the north-west of the country and that, according __________________ 9 10 6/14 In this respect, the State party submits that the Board took into consideration in its decision of 8 April 2015 the information contained in: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Position on returns to southern and central Somalia” (June 2014). Sweden, Swedish Migration Agency, Somalia — Territorial Influence of Various Players (Stockholm, 23 March 2015). 18-06600