CEDAW/C/68/D/79/2014 6.2 The State party refers to the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 10 September 2015 in R.H. v. Sweden (application No. 4601/14) concerning a Somali woman, in paragraph 70 of which the Court stated that “it may be concluded that a single woman returning to Mogadishu without access to protection from a male network would face a real risk of living in co nditions constituting inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention ”. 6.3 The State party considers, however, that this decision has no bearing on the author’s case, given that the latter ’s circumstances differ considerably from those of R.H., notably because it cannot be considered to be a fact that the author would be a single woman with no support network if returned to her country of origin, given that, according to her own statement at the asylum screening interview on 9 May 2014, sh e has her parents and three siblings in her home village and belongs to the Duduble clan, which is the only clan there. The author also stated during the same interview that she had an uncle, I.A.B., who lived in her village. 6.4 Referring to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, notably the cases of P.T. v. Denmark 4 and K. v. Denmark, 5 the State party notes that the Committee should give importance to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. It reiterates that, in the case at issue, no such defect in the procedure occurred and the author failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility, meaning that the communication is manifestly ill-founded and should be considered inadmissible. The State party further maintains that, should the Committee find the communication admissible, 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 to Somalia. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 66, the Committee may decide to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. 7.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the author claims to have exhausted domestic remedies and that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on that ground. The Committee observes that, according to the information available to it, decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are not subject to appeal before the national courts. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 7.4 The Committee notes the author ’s claim under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the State party’s observation that the European Convention is not within the scope of the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the alleged violation of the European Convention is inadmissible as __________________ 4 5 6/8 See CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013, para. 7.3. See CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014, paras. 7.4 and 7.5. 17-21664