CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015 who faces forced marriage upon her return; 12 (c) the author’s fear of being returned to Jordan; (d) the fact that she left behind her other children; (e) her Palestinian refugee status that may force her to seek refuge in a settlement for internally displaced persons or a refugee camp upon her return, owing to her lack of family ties or social network in Jordan. 5.3 The author reiterates that her removal to Jordan would constitute a breach of articles 1 and 2 (d), read in conjunction with article 2 (e) and (f), and article 15 (4) of the Convention. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 7 November 2016, the State party submitted its additional observations. 6.2 The State party upholds its observations of October 2015 and, in response to the author’s specific comments on the lack of a gender-specific approach in the assessment of her case, it submits that, in the course of examining the author ’s case, the State party authorities specifically focused on clarifying the issue of gender specific persecution, which was exactly what was at stake for the author in the particular case, so the assessment therefore must have had a gender-specific dimension. 6.3 In relation to the author’s claims challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board not to request verification of the authenti city of the arrest warrant, the State party upholds its arguments as set out in its previous observations. 6.4 Regarding the alleged vulnerability of the author as a Palestinian refugee, the State party reiterates that the author holds a Jordanian passpor t and, as a Jordanian national, that she has the same rights as other Jordanian nationals. The State party refutes the author’s assertion that it did not take into account the background material submitted in her initial complaint and submits that the Refu gee Appeals Board undertook an overall assessment of all circumstances relied upon by the author together with all available background information on Jordan, including those submitted by the author. 6.5 In the light of the above, and considering that the author’s additional comments do not give rise to a different assessment of her case, the State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible as not being sufficiently substantiated. Should the Committee consider the case on the meri ts, the State party is of the view that the removal of the author would not constitute a violation of the Convention. 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 of its rules of procedure, 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. __________________ 12 8/13 The author contends that the State party failed to adopt a gender-sensitive approach not only with regard to her claims but with regard to her children’s claims as well and, in that regard, invokes articles 3 and 22 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, in conjunction with article 5 (a) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 19-15427