CEDAW/C/75/D/108/2016 discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention and that such rights included the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture. 14 The Committee reaffirms the obligation of States parties to eliminate discrimination agains t women, including gender-based violence, reiterating that the obligation comprised two aspects of State responsibility for such violence: that which resulted from the acts or omissions of both the State party or its agents, on the one hand, and non -State actors, on the other. 15 6.7 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party’s asylum authorities found that the author’s account lacked credibility, owing to a number of factual inconsistencies and a lack of substantiation. The Committee also notes the State party’s contention that the author’s claims had been examined by the national immigration authorities, but were rejected. 6.8 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the authorities of States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence or the application of national law in a particular case, 16 unless it can be established that the evaluation was biased or based on gender stereotypes that constitute discrimination against women, was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 17 In that regard, the Committee notes that, in substance, the author’s claims are aimed at challenging the manner in which the State party’s authorities assessed the factual circumstances of her case, applied the provisions of legislation and reached their conclusions. 6.9 In the light of the foregoing, on the basis of material on file, while not underestimating the concerns that may be reasonably expressed with regard to gender based violence and discrimination in Somalia, the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, that the assessment of her case by the State party’s asylum authorities resulted in any gender-based discrimination or that she would suffer persecution if deported to Somalia. 6.10 The Committee considers that no element on file permits it to conclude that the State party’s authorities failed to give sufficient and adequate consideration to the author’s application for asylum or that, in the process of the examination of her case, there was any procedural defect or arbitrariness in that process. 7. The Committee therefore decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol; (b) This decision shall be communicated to the State party an d to the author. __________________ 14 15 16 17 20-05121 See general recommendation No. 19, para. 7. See general recommendation No. 35 (2017) on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, para. 21. See, for example, R.P.B. v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011), para. 7.5. See, for example, N.Q. and S.A. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CEDAW/C/63/D/62/2013), para. 6.6; and N.M. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/67/D/78/2014), para. 8.6. 9/9