CEDAW/C/69/D/85/2015 thereby exposing her to the risk of serious forms of gender-based violence at the hands of her family members or Al-Shabaab. 9.7 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the authorities of States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence or the application of national law in a particular case, 24 unless it can be established that the evaluation was biased or based on gender stereotypes that constitute discrimination against women, was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 25 In that regard, the Committee notes that, in substance, the author is challenging the manner in which the State p arty’s authorities assessed the factual circumstances of her case, applied the provisions of legislation and reached conclusions. The issue before the Committee is, therefore, whether there was any irregularity in the decision-making process regarding the author’s asylum application, to the extent that the State party’s authorities failed to properly assess the risk of serious gender-based violence in the event of her return to Somalia. 9.8 The Committee notes that the State party’s authorities found that the author’s account lacked credibility owing to a number of factual inconsistencies and a lack of substantiation. It also notes the author’s explanation that she had her child on her lap at the interviews with the Danish Immigration Service, which confused her and accordingly had an impact on the statements given by her on her grounds for requesting asylum. The Committee notes that all the interview reports throughout the asylum proceedings were reviewed with the author, who was given the opportunity to comment on them, and that she never objected to their content. The Committee further notes the State party’s explanation of the possibility for the author to avail herself of childcare services during the interviews (see para. 4.8). The Committee further observes that the limited information provided by the author to the Committee corroborates the determination of the State party’s authorities that the author’s claims lack substantiation. The Committee further notes that the State party took into consideration the general situation in Somalia. 9.9 The Committee also takes note of the author’s claims that the Danish immigration authorities have failed to consider her case from the perspective of the Convention and to mention the Convention in their decision, eve n though this matter was raised orally and in writing by her counsel during the Refugee Appeals Board hearing. The Committee takes note of the State party’s reply that the Convention is a source of law in Denmark and forms an integral part of the assessmen ts made by the Board in asylum cases. The Committee observes that the author ’s counsel requested the immigration authorities to consider her asylum claim in the light of the Convention, without referring to specific provisions and without substantiating he r claims under any specific articles. 9.10 Regarding the author’s claim that the fact that she is a single woman constitutes a supplementary factor of risk for her in Somalia, the Committee points out, in the light of the information contained on file, notably “Position on returns to southern and central Somalia”, published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in June 2014, on which both the State party and the author rely, that the author in fact has both family support and a protection network because she has several close relatives remaining in Somalia, including her parents and siblings, as well as uncles and aunts and their respective families. The Committee therefore considers that this part of the communication has not be en sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, since the author cannot be considered to __________________ 24 25 18-06600 See, for example, R.P.B. v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011), para. 7.5. See, for example, N.Q. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CEDAW/C/63/D/62/2013). 13/14