CEDAW/C/68/D/79/2014 information on the general situation in southern and central Somalia. 3 None of the background information currently available, however, can lead to the conclusion that the general situation in Ceel Garas is independently of such a nature that, if returned to Somalia, the author would risk persecution justifying her being granted asylum. 4.10 Lastly, the State party stresses that that it cannot be considered to be a fac t 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, she has her parents and three siblings in her home village and belongs to the Duduble clan, which is the only clan there. 4.11 The State party concludes that the Refugee Appeals Board, a collegial body of a quasi-judicial nature, made a thorough assessment of the author ’s credibility, the background information available and the author ’s specific circumstances and found that the author had failed to render it probable that, in the case of her return to Somalia, she would risk persecution or abuse justifying her being granted asylum. The author’s communication merely reflects that she disagrees with the assessment of her case by the Board. She failed to identify any irregularity in the decision -making process or any risk factors that the Board had failed to take properly into account. The author is attempting to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances in support of her claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. The State party submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to determination of the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances of the author’s case. Thus, in the State party’s opinion, there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by the Board, according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that she would be subject to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of persecution if returned to Somalia and that the necessary and foreseeable consequence of a return is that her rights under the Convention would be violated. It would not therefore constitute a breach of articles 3, 5 and 16 (b) of the Convention to return the author to Somalia. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 26 August 2015, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 Reiterating her earlier statements, she stresses that she would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious gender-based violence and a risk of forced marriage if she were returned to Somalia. 5.3 The author also stresses that the State party has not investigated the dangerousness of the situation to which she is exposed. She reiterates that her removal to Somalia would constitute a breach of articles 3, 5 and 16 (b) of the Con vention. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 3 February 2016, the State party submitted its additional observations. __________________ 3 17-21664 The background information includes the report of the Secretary -General on Somalia of 12 May 2014 (S/2014/330); the African Union Mission in Somalia press release of 26 March 2014, entitled “AMISOM and Somali National Army capture Eel Buur town”; and country information and guidance, published by the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in February 2015. 5/8