CEDAW/C/69/D/85/2015 note to the bill amending the Aliens Act, concerning section 7 (2), which provides that residence permits should be issued to aliens (other than those falling under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees) who have a right to protection under those conventions to which Denmark has acceded. It is further explained in the note that section 7 (2) is drafted in accordance with article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocol No. 6, as well as article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Board obviously also undertakes, as part of its non-refoulement analysis, an assessment of the possible discrimination against women to which the asylum seekers would be exposed in the event of return, and any assessment under section 7 of the Act comprises the risk of gender-specific abuse. 6.8 In conclusion, the State party reiterates its opinion that the author failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of her communication, which is manifestly ill-founded. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party submits that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that it would constitute a violation of the Convention to return the author and her son to Somalia. Lastly, the Government wishes to draw attention to the statistics on the case law of the Danish immigration authorities, which show, among other things, the recognition rates for asylum claims from the 10 largest national groups of asylum seekers decided by the Board between 2013 and 2015. Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 26 January 2017, the author submitted her comments on the State party ’s additional observations. She argues in great detail that the Danish Immigratio n Service and the Refugee Appeals Board systematically fail to take the Convention into consideration when assessing the requests of female asylum seekers for protection against deportation to countries of origin, even since the Committee clarified its position on the extraterritorial effect of the Convention. 19 The author emphasizes in this regard that the Convention offers a wider scope of protection of women against refoulement than article 3 of the European Convention, 20 which, however, has been incorporated into the law of the State party. She adds that she clearly stated as her grounds for granting asylum her flight from a forced marriage in Somalia and explained the violent consequences should she refuse to obey. She claims, therefore, that the State party is in violation of the Convention, since she has sufficiently substantiated her allegations concerning the risk of gender -specific violence that she faces if returned to Somalia. 7.2 The author further submits that it is unclear from the State party ’s additional observations (see para. 6.4) which entity reviewed her asylum case in the light of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in R.H. v. Sweden and decided not to reopen it, or when that occurred. She submits that the decision in question was definitely not taken by the five Board members who issued the decision of 8 April 2015. Since the Board rejected the grounds for her application for asylum as not credible, it may well have concluded that her family can serve as her male network. Such a decision, however, can be taken only by the Board as an integral part of its non-refoulement analysis. The author recalls in this regard that the male network referred to by the State party comprises the very same persons, her father and brothers, whom she fears will kill her upon her return to Somalia. __________________ 19 20 10/14 Reference is made to M.N.N. v. Demark and the Committee’s general recommendation No. 32 (2014). Reference is made to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in L.O. v. France (application No. 4455/14) of 26 May 2015. 18-06600