CEDAW/C/75/D/108/2016 authorities, as well as their obliviousness to cultural circumstances and the accessibility of the Internet. 5.4 As for the refusal of the Refugee Appeals Board to order a medical examination for signs of torture, the author takes note of the State party’s reference to the conclusion of the Board that, because there was no real risk of torture in the event of the author’s deportation, no examination would be initiated. The author claims that that part of the procedure was inconsistent with human rights standards and revealed procedural irregularities because it was not clear what she could have done to substantiate her asylum claim. 5.5 The author claims that, in her case, a lower priority seems to have been given in the proceedings to gender-based issues than to details surrounding those claims. The gender-based violence, forced marriage, domestic abuse and discriminatory, patriarchal societal norms were not properly taken into account and, instead, the proceedings were focused on details related to the flight of the author, with the minor divergent information apparently being sufficient grounds for rejecting her entire claim for protection. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 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. 6.3 The Committee notes that the author claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies and that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on those grounds. The Committee observes that, according to the information available to it, decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are in principle not subject to appeal before the national courts. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol do not preclude it from examining the communication. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims that her deportation to Somalia would amount to a violation by Denmark of articles 1 and 2 (d), read in conjunction with article 2 (e) and (f), of the Convention. It also notes the State party’s observations that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate her claims for the purposes of admissibility and has failed to establish that the assessment by the Refugee Appeals Board was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or a denial of justice and has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision -making process or any risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. 6.5 The Committee reiterates that, according to its jurisprudence, the Convention has extraterritorial effect only when the woman to be returned will be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence. 12 6.6 The Committee recalls that, under international human rights law, the non-refoulement principle imposes a duty on States to refrain from returning a person to a jurisdiction in which he or she may face serious violations of human rights, notably arbitrary deprivation of life or torture or other crue l, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 13 It reiterates that gender-based violence, which impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms under general international law or under human rights conventions, amount s to __________________ 12 13 8/9 See, for example, M.N.N. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011), para. 8.10. See general recommendation No. 32, para. 21. 20-05121