CEDAW/C/75/D/108/2016 there is no real risk of torture in the event of removal, it will not normally initiate such an examination. That approach also applies to cases in which an asylum seeker has appeared to be non-credible throughout the proceedings and the Board therefore finds a basis for rejecting that person’s claim of torture in its entirety. 4.18 The State party notes that, in the present case, the Refugee Appeals Board found that, based on an overall, specific and individual assessment, the author’s account of her grounds for asylum lacked credibility, and the Board therefore found no reason to initiate an examination of her for signs of torture. 4.19 The State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board made its decision of 17 November 2015 on the basis of a procedure during which the author had had the opportunity to present her views, both in writing and orally, with the assistance of counsel. The Board had conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case. With reference to the Board’s decision, the State party considers that the author will not be at risk of persecution or abuse justifying asylum upon return to Somalia and that her return will not violate articles 1 and 2 (d), (e) and (f) of the Convention. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 The author presented her comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility on 15 August 2017. She notes that the State party has failed to substantiate that her communication was inadmissible on the basis of being manifestly ill-founded. 5.2 Regarding the State party’s observations on the merits, the author claims that it has failed to give sufficient weight to her individual circumstances, which may have compromised her appearance of credibility. The author refers to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in A.A.S. v. Denmark, in which it was noted that, in the light of the information provided by the author, the information available at the time to the Committee and the record of human rights violations in Somalia, the Committee considered that the State party’s immigration authorities had not given sufficient weight to the cumulative effect of the author’s individual circumstances, which made him particularly vulnerable, in assessing the risk of him being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, in the event of his forcible return to Somalia. In the Committee’s view, the author’s situation was distinguishable from that of other Somali nationals who had sought asylum abroad on the grounds of the general situation in Somalia, given that he had left the country of origin at the age of 5 and did not have any remaining family or social network in Somalia, had limited literacy skills in the Somali language, belonged to a minority clan and had suffered from tuberculosis in the recent past. In those circumstances, the Committee was of the view that the author’s removal to Somalia, in the absence of further consideration of his case in the light of the cumulative effect of the aforementioned individual circumstances, would put him at a real risk of irreparable harm such as that envisaged in article 7 of the Covenant, in particular given the fa ct that his brother had already been granted protection status by the State party’s immigration authorities. 11 5.3 The author claims that the State party has violated her right to due process. Her reasons for seeking asylum have been consistent with her ini tial claim and have now been substantiated by hard evidence from her spouse. It is not unlikely or improbable that the author has been in contact with her spouse through her online social network. Challenging that fact would only reveal a lack of knowledge on the part of the __________________ 11 20-05121 A.A.S. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2464/2014), para. 7.7. 7/9