CCPR/C/128/D/3012/2017 accounts of her search for information by contacting her relatives and clan members in Somalia. 4.12 The State party notes that the author has raised a new claim before the Committee, that she cannot return to her uncle in Mogadishu because his son is a member of AlShabaab. It points out that she has not submitted any explanation for her failure to raise this claim during the domestic asylum proceedings. The State party considers it reasonable to expect the author not to omit such a fundamental element of her claim during the asylum proceedings. It therefore finds the author’s new claim to be an “escalation” of her asylum account and strongly questions its credibility. 4.13 In the light of the foregoing, the State party considers that its migration authorities have thoroughly examined the author’s claims, and that her protection claims are not credible. It contends that, by presenting additional information and details only at a later stage before the Committee, the author has escalated her asylum account, undermining her credibility. The State party asserts that its migration authorities have provided evidence that Mogadishu is both a relevant and reasonable internal flight alternative for the author. Furthermore, the State party notes that the author has not indicated any risk of persecution by the State or its agents that would mean that internal flight to Mogadishu might not be considered relevant or reasonable. It contends that due consideration has been given to the author’s personal situation including her sex, age, health and the availability of support networks in Mogadishu. She has been deemed to have relevant support networks consisting of clan support, both from the Darod and Hawiye Abgaal clan on either side of her parents, and the support of a male network, her uncle. Lastly, the State party points out that, as there is an international airport in Mogadishu, the author is able to return to Mogadishu without having to travel by herself within Somalia, and that she has failed to substantiate a real risk of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment upon her return to Mogadishu. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5. On 8 March and 31 August 2019, the author submitted that she was encountering difficulties, as she missed her family, especially her children. She also stated that she had no further comments on the State party’s observations. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In a letter dated 13 November 2019, the State party provided additional observations. It notes that the author’s submissions dated 8 March and 31 August 2019 provide that she is a mother who is alone in Sweden, that she misses her children, and that she cannot wait any longer without her family. It also notes that in her initial complaint before the Migration Agency, the author claimed that she had a son and three daughters whose place of residence seemed to be Masagaway, where she used to live with her family. The author then filled out a form in which she indicated that she was unaware of the whereabouts of her children. During the asylum proceedings, she stated that she did not know what had happened to her husband and her children. In a submission dated 10 September 2015 to the domestic authorities, she indicated that while her husband and her family were on the run, she did not know where they were. She also stated that her only relative was a cousin in Mogadishu; she had four brothers and a younger sister with whom she had lost contact when they had fled the war between 1999 and 2000; that an older aunt still lived in Masagaway; and that a cousin on her father’s side was living in Karan, where her father lived until he died. 6.2 In view of the foregoing, the State party reiterates that the author’s accounts contain a number of contradictory elements and implausible circumstances and that she provided a vague account, lacking in detail, about what happened to her and her family in Somalia. The State party notes that the author has not provided any information about what happened to her husband and her children, even though they seem to be in contact with her, with the ultimate aim of reuniting with the author in Sweden. 6.3 The State party repeats that Mogadishu is both a relevant and reasonable internal flight alternative for the author, where she has been deemed to have relevant support networks consisting of clan support. It submits that the author should be able to receive support from her husband and her children with whom she seems to be in contact. Accordingly, by returning the author to Mogadishu, Sweden would not violate its obligation under article 7 of the Covenant. 5