CEDAW/C/69/D/85/2015 5.3 The author states that, although ratified by the State party, the Convention has not been incorporated into Danish law. Moreover, the Board ’s case law indicates that the national authorities do not consider the decisions of the Committee legally binding. The author also claims that the Board’s decisions never explicitly mention provisions of the Convention and that, as a result, it cannot be ascertained whether the Board has taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the Convention. Even though her counsel has explicitly invoked, orally and in writing, the State party’s obligations under the Convention before the Board, the latter ’s decision of 8 April 2015 makes no mention of the Convention. The same is true of the decision of the Danish Immigration Service. 5.4 With regard to the admissibility of her communication, the author argues that it is closely linked to the merits and that, as a single woman who is being deported to a country that has not even signed the Convention and in the light of all the background information confirming her fears about the possible consequences of her being returned with her son to Somalia, she has established a prima facie case under articles 1, 2, 12 and 15 of the Convention. 5.5 With regard to the merits, the author accepts that she did not provide new information in the two weeks that passed between the Board ’s decision of 8 April 2015 and the submission of her communication to the Committee on 22 April 2015. The author further submits that the Board’s decision was not unanimous. 14 Furthermore, contrary to the assertion that the Board always takes into account the State party’s international obligations when making decisions in asylum cases, regardless of whether that is expressly stated in the decision, the author argues that there are no examples of the Board stating expressly that it has taken the Convention into account. Moreover, the Convention is not mentioned on a web page run by the State party’s asylum authorities, which contains a list of international conventions that are considered relevant to the asylum process and applications for residence permits. 5.6 The author further argues that the Board should have applied the principle of the benefit of the doubt 15 in her case. Moreover, if she and her son were returned to Somalia, she would have no protection and, even if Al -Shabaab is not currently in control of her home town, it continues to exert great influence. With reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, she argues that the authorities of the State party should have taken into account the situation of single women without male protection. As a single woman, she is thus at greater risk of being subjected to gender-specific violence, without any possibility of protection from the Somali authorities. Lastly, she affirms that the risk of gender-based violence for her is real, personal and foreseeable. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 15 November 2016, the State party submitted its additional observations. 6.2 As to the author’s claim that, as a single woman with no means of protection, she fears gender-specific violence and that all relevant information from Somalia appears to indicate that her fear is justified by the situation on the ground (see para. 5.4), the State party recalls that the Refugee Appeals Board could not accept as factual the __________________ 14 15 8/14 According to the English translation of the Board’s decision of 8 April 2015, provided by the State party, the said decision was adopted unanimously. Reference is made to section III of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Guidelines on International Protection of 7 May 2002. 18-06600