CEDAW/C/69/D/85/2015 author’s account of her grounds for seeking asylum. 16 It refers to its prior observations of 23 October 2015, which provide a detailed account of the Board’s assessment of the author’s credibility (see paras. 4.5–4.10). The State party therefore agrees with the Board’s finding that the author has not rendered probable that, should she and her son be returned to Somalia, she would face a conflict with her family or Al-Shabaab. 6.3 The State party refers to the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights concerning a Somali woman, in which the Court stated that: It may be concluded that a single woman returning to Mogadishu without a ccess to protection from a male network would face a real risk of living in conditions constituting inhuman or degrading treatment under article 3 of the Convention. 17 6.4 The State party observes that the fact that the Board has reopened cases on the basis of the above-mentioned judgment in order to assess the social network in Somalia of the asylum seekers in question indicates that the Board makes a concrete and individual assessment of the circumstances of each asylum seeker. The author ’s situation, however, is not comparable with that of the complainant in R.H. v. Sweden or with that of the individuals in any of the cases reopened by the Board. Because the Board could not accept the author’s conflict with her family as a fact, it relied on its finding that the author cannot be deemed to be a single woman with no male network if returned to her country of origin, given that, as she stated throughout the asylum proceedings, she has brothers and parents still living in Somalia. 6.5 As to the author’s argument that the State party’s observations on her case are bound to be biased, given that her case was used as an example of a communication that should have never been registered by the Committee (see paras. 5.1–5.2), the State party stands by that position, given that the author has not substantiated her claim that there are substantial grounds for believing that returning her and her son to Somalia would constitute a violation of the Convention, including of article 2 (d). The State party adds that the Board is an independent, quasi-judicial body, and that the Government cannot issue directions to it on the decisions to be made in individual cases. Furthermore, the Board did not provide details on the nature of the cases complained of for the purpose of putting before the parliament bill No. L97, which was introduced by the Ministry of Justice on 16 December 2015. Against that background, the State party considers that the author ’s alleged fear of not receiving a fair hearing is not substantiated. 6.6 With regard to the general situation in Somalia, including that of women, the State party relies on the Board’s finding that the situation is not such that all returnees risk abuse falling within the meaning of section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. The Board referred in this respect to the above-cited judgment in R.H. v. Sweden and to recent background information, 18 according to which forces of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the Somali military are present in the Hiraan region. 6.7 With respect to the author’s argument that the Convention was not mentioned in the national-level proceedings, the State party stresses that, although the Convention is not explicitly referred to in the vast majority of the Board ’s decisions, the State party is bound by underlying international conventions, from which national protection emanates. By way of illustration, the State party refers to the explanatory __________________ 16 17 18 18-06600 Namely, the author’s conflict with her family, which started when her family tried to make her accept a forced marriage with an unknown man prior to her departure, the circumstance that she has had a relationship and a child with a man who was not accepted by her family and the antagonism between the author and Al-Shabaab caused by her conflict with her family. R.H. v. Sweden (application No. 4601/14), para. 70. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, “Country information and guidance south and central Somalia: fear of Al-Shabaab” (London, March 2016). 9/14