CEDAW/C/69/D/85/2015 vague. 5 The Board referred to the findings of a language analysis test, 6 according to which the author was deemed to have manipulated her language to imitate a dialect spoken in southern Somalia, and observed that, according to the author ’s Facebook account, she had studied in Hargeysa, in north-western Somalia. The Board also referred to a letter of 6 May 2014 from the Italian authorities, in which they state that the author’s name is unknown to them, despite her claim to have held a residence permit in Italy from 2008 to 2011. In the light of the foregoing, the Board concluded that the author had failed to substantiate her claim for asylum. Accordingly, it could not be considered a fact that she had a conflict with her family or with Al -Shabaab. Based on information provided by her, the Board considered to be a fact, however, that she had close family members in her country of origin. 2.8 The author affirms that she has exhausted all domestic remedies and notes that the Board’s decision is final and not subject to appeal. She also submits that the communication is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party would breach its obligations under articles 1, 2 (d), 12, 15 and 16 of the Convention by returning her and her son to Somalia. 3.2 She argues that, as a single woman with a small child, she would be exposed to the risk of gender-based violence in Somalia, contrary to article 12 of the Convention. 3.3 With regard to articles 2 and 15, the author argues that the authorities of the State party failed to take into account her rights under the Convention, in spite of her submission before the Refugee Appeals Board that returning her and her son to Somalia would constitute a violation. In that regard, the author refers to the Committee’s general recommendations No. 19 (1992) on violence against women and No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women. She also claims that her right to equal treatment, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, has been violated. 3.4 With regard to article 16 of the Convention, the author states that she risks being exposed to gender-based violence at the hands of her family or Al-Shabaab if returned to Somalia, because she resisted a forced marriage and had a child with another man despite her family’s disapproval of their relationship. 3.5 She also states that the assessment made by the Board of her credibility is far-fetched and that it did not include in its decision any reason for not acc epting her statements as facts. 3.6 The author maintains that the kind of language analysis test performed on her, which concluded with a high degree of certainty that she was imitating a dialect spoken in southern Somalia, has been criticized. Similar tests carried out in the U nited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in cases involving asylum seekers from Somalia, she asserts, have been problematic. __________________ 5 6 4/14 The Board specifically referred to the author’s statements regarding her arranged marriage with the man abroad; her meetings with H., including how he always wore a niqab when meeting her at the home of her friend, N.; how she was caught by her father; what her paternal aunt had known when she was caught with H. by her father in March/April 2008; how she was kept in hiding thereafter; her maternal aunt’s visit; H.’s stay in their home town after the discovery of the relationship between the two; who had acted as her witnesses when she was married to H. in Libya; her residence permit for Italy; her stay in Italy with H.; her Faceb ook account in the name of C.B.; and the funding of her journey. The test was conducted on 30 June 2014. The findings are based on an analysis of 9 examples of phonology and prosody, 6 of morphology and syntax and 11 of vocabulary. 18-06600