CCPR/C/128/D/3012/2017 particular, the Migration Agency took into consideration the fact that the author was unable to account for the circumstances surrounding her detention by Al-Shabaab and her subsequent escape. It thus concluded that she had failed to substantiate her grounds for asylum and that her statements were not credible. That conclusion was also supported by country information indicating that Somalis working for humanitarian organizations were not seen as opponents to Al-Shabaab, while local staff of the African Union Mission in Somalia and the United Nations were known to be targeted by the group. Notwithstanding the negative credibility finding of the author’s claims, the Migration Agency noted that she would not be able to safely return to Masagaway owing to the security conditions, and continued to assess whether an internal flight alternative would be relevant and plausible. 4.9 The State party submits that, given that the security situation in Somalia varies in different parts of the country, a threat level may be limited to a certain location, and there may be an internal flight alternative. It notes that when determining whether such an alternative is relevant, circumstances such as sex, age, health and the availability of support networks must be taken into consideration. It considers that the situation is not such as to put everyone in any part of Somalia at risk of being treated in a way that would entail a violation of the Covenant. It also notes that, in cases where an internal flight alternative in Mogadishu is deemed relevant, the reasonableness of the proposed internal flight must be assessed. 4.10 In the present case, the State party’s authorities first assessed the human rights and security situation in the habitual place of residence of the author, Masagaway, in the province of Shabelle Dhexe. They concluded that Al-Shabaab was in control of the area and that the author would therefore be unable to use a safe travel route back there. Consequently, Mogadishu, where the author was born and raised, was identified as an internal flight alternative. In this respect, the State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which, with reference to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), has indicated that “article 3 does not, as such, preclude Contracting States from placing reliance on the existence of an internal flight alternative in their assessment of an individual’s claim that a return to his or her country of origin would expose him or her to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by that provision”.5 The State party notes that the European Court ruled that, in order to rely on the internal flight alterative, States must ensure that “the person to be expelled must be able to travel to the area concerned, gain admittance and settle there”.6 The State party also takes note of the relevant jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture.7 4.11 With regard to the situation in Mogadishu, the State party observes that it is not such as to put everyone who is present there at real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As regards the author’s personal situation, the State party notes that she was born in Mogadishu and was raised in the Hawiye Abgaal clan, which is also her husband’s clan, while she belongs to the Arab Rer Saleh clan. The author’s mother lived in Mogadishu until she died. According to country information, while all clans are represented in Mogadishu, the majority of the population are members of the Abgaal Hawiye clan. Furthermore, the author has a male relative, her uncle, in Mogadishu, who paid for her medical treatment and arranged for her departure from Somalia, including by selling her mother’s house and finding a smuggler. The State party’s authorities therefore found that the author’s claim that she lacked any male network to be unsubstantiated and not credible and thus held that she had failed to substantiate a risk of persecution upon her return to Mogadishu. The State party finds no reason to question this assessment. Furthermore, while the author provided no information about her husband and her children, the State party considers it unlikely that she is unaware of her family’s whereabouts, or unable to obtain any information about her family or at least provide 5 6 7 4 European Court of Human Rights, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands (application No. 1948/04), judgment of 11 January 2007, para. 141. See also Chahal v. the United Kingdom (application No. 22414/93), 15 November 1996, para. 98; Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, (application Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07), 28 June 2011, para. 266; and N.M.B. v. Sweden (application No. 68335/10), judgment of 27 June 2013, para. 37. European Court of Human Rights, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, para. 141. H.M.H.I. v. Australia (CAT/C/28/D/177/2001), para. 6.6; B.S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/32/D/183/2001), para. 11.5; and N.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/59/D/582/2014), para. 9.6.