CEDAW/C/69/D/85/2015 7.3 The author disagrees with the State party’s assessment that her situation is not comparable to that of the complainant in R.H. v. Sweden, or to the individuals concerned in any of the cases that the Board decided to reopen on the basis of that judgment. 21 She argues, therefore, that the decision not to reopen her case is in violation of article 3 of the European Convention and the Convention. 7.4 The author submits that the security situation in Mogadishu has worsened since the Board’s decision of 8 April 2015 and that, as a single mother with a small child, she has no male network to support her on her return to Somalia. State party’s further observations 8.1 On 11 April 2017, the State party submitted that the author ’s comments on its additional observations did not provide any new and specific information on her case and that, therefore, it relied on the Refugee Appeal Board’s decision and on its earlier observations of 23 October 2015 and 15 November 2016. Regarding the author ’s statement on her grounds for being granted asylum and the alleged conflicts in Somalia, the State party refers to its observations of 23 October 2015. As to the author’s submission on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in R.H. v. Sweden, the State party refers to its observations of 15 November 2016. In addition, the State party observes that it has previously cons idered the author’s argument that her case should be reopened in the light of the aforementioned judgment, and that it also considered the author’s family ties, including whether she can be considered a single woman. 8.2 With regard to the review of the author’s case (see para. 7.2), the State party clarifies that the Board did not reopen the case, but rather perused her case documents in the light of her reference to the judgment in R.H. v. Sweden in the context of the present communication. 8.3 With regard to the author’s argument that the absence of any explicit reference to the Convention in the Board’s decision of 8 April 2015 means that it failed to consider the Convention’s applicability in her case, the State party observes that it has taken into account the submission made by the author’s counsel in the present communication and in connection with a number of other communications from individuals who are represented by him. The State party refers in this respect to its observations of 15 November 2016. As to the Board’s compliance with international obligations, reference is made to the State party’s observations of 23 October 2015 and to the Committee’s decision on admissibility in K.S. v. Denmark. 22 The State party also refers to the Board’s website (www.fln.dk), which contains references to the statutes and legislative provisions relevant to the Board ’s activities, including reference to the Convention. 8.4 The State party further observes that the general situation in Somalia, including that of women, is not such that all returnees risk abuse falling within the meaning of section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. In that respect, the State party refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in R.H. v. Sweden and the most recent background information, 23 according to which Buulobarde, in the Hiraan region of Somalia, which the author has stated is her home town, is under the control of AMISOM. 8.5 The State party maintains that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol __________________ 21 22 23 18-06600 Reference is made to communication No. 93/2015, K.I.A. v. Denmark. CEDAW/C/64/D/64/2013, para. 9.7. Denmark, Danish Immigration Service, and Danish Refugee Council, “South and central Somalia: security situation, Al-Shabaab presence, and target groups” (Copenhagen, March 2017). 11/14