CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015 4.3 The State party submits that, insofar as the author relies on the Conve ntion having extraterritorial effect, the Convention has such an 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. 5 Given that the author has failed to substantiate that she faces such a risk should she be forcibly returned to Jordan, the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. 4.4 Should the Committee find the communication to be admissible and consider the merits of the case, the State party asserts that the author has not sufficiently substantiated the claim that she would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if, together with her children, she were to be returned to Jordan. The State party observes that the author has failed to produce new and specific information on her situation additional to the information on the basis of which the Refugee Appeals Board denied her asylum r equest. 4.5 The State party recalls that the author’s statements before the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board were inconsistent. During the interviews before the Danish authorities, the author submitted that she had lived in an oppressive and violent relationship in which she was being surveilled and was not allowed to leave the house without being accompanied by a man. The State party found it unlikely that, had that been the case, the author ’s spouse would have allowed her to travel unaccompanied to another country with their daughters, especially considering that one of them was about to be married. It is even more doubtful, considering the fact that the author had expressly objected to the forced marriage of their older daughter, and therefore her position regarding the issue must have been clear to her husband and should have raised doubts as to the author ’s explanation for her travel. 4.6 The State party also finds the author’s assertion that her husband allowed their daughters to accompany the author to Denmark only because they were too young to take care of themselves to be non-credible. In that connection, the State party submits that the author, according to her own statement, had lived together with her husband ’s family in Jordan, so it is therefore implausible that there was no one who could look after her daughters, who were born in 1998 and 2005. 4.7 In addition, the State party questions the author’s statement in which she claimed that she had convinced her husband to allo w her to travel to Denmark by voluntarily assisting him in his illegal activities. The State party also doubts the author’s statement about the killing of her cousin by her spouse. In that respect, the State party notes that the author mentioned that infor mation for the first time at her meeting with counsel on 11 December 2013, and repeated it at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 21 January 2014, but had failed to mention any of it previously, despite its importance and her numerous opportuni ties to do so either in the application itself or subsequently, during the interview process. 6 The State party does not find the author’s excuse in that regard, that she could not reveal the information because she was afraid of retaliation by her family, to be credible. The State party submits that the author must have realized the importance of the information from the perspective of the assessment of her asylum request, and that the author was duly informed of the Danish authorities’ duty of confidentiality with regard to all information revealed by the author in the context of the proceedings. The __________________ 5 6 19-15427 The State party refers to the decision of the Committee in M.N.N. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/55/D/ 33/2011), in that regard. The information at issue was not mentioned by the author in her initial submission to the Committee either. 5/13