CEDAW/C/69/D/80/2015 regard to her sexuality. Such a witness would not have been in a position to contribute information on the author’s situation in Uganda prior to her departure, given that, by her own account, they had met only since her arrival in Denmark. The witness, therefore, had no direct link to the author’s grounds for seeking asylum and the Board turned down the author’s request. That decision was by no means based on the author’s gender, nor on the gender of the witness, as the rules governing the calling of witnesses are gender-neutral. 4.15 With regard to references to the Convention, the State party submits that the fact that the Board made no explicit reference to the Convention in its decision of 5 December 2014 in no way means that the Board failed to take it into account. The Convention, along with other international human rights treaties, forms an integral part of the Board’s assessment of asylum cases. 4.16 Lastly, the State party submits that the author’s communication to the Committee merely reflects that the author disagrees with the Board’s assessment of her case. However, she has failed to identify any irregularity in the decision -making process or any risk factors that the Board has not taken properly into account. She is, in fact, attempting to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances submitted in support of her claim for asylum reassessed. The State party submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the facts found by the Board, which is better placed to assess the factua l circumstances of the author’s case. There is, in the view of the State party, no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the Board’s assessment, according to which the author has failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that she would be subject to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of persecution if returned to Uganda, and that the necessary and foreseeable consequence of her return is that her rights under the Convention would be violated. Returning her to Uganda woul d, therefore, not constitute a breach of article 1, 2 or 3 of the Convention. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 29 February 2016, the author submitted her comments on the State party ’s observations on admissibility and the merits. 5.2 Reaffirming her earlier statements and referring to paragraph 16 of the Committee’s general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and stateless of women, she stresses that, as a lesbian, she would be exposed to gender-based persecution if she were returned to Uganda. 5.3 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee in cases against Denmark 4 and reaffirms that there were procedural irregularities in the treatment of her case by the Danish asylum authorities, including the denial of her request to call a witness, and the fact that she was mistakenly identified as another person, which affected her general credibility and shows that she was not taken seriously. The author recalls the absence of any mention of the Convention in proceedings regarding her case, adds that it has not been incorporated into the State __________________ 4 6/11 See, for example, Osayi Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013), in which the Human Rights Committee found in favour of a woman from Nigeria who had fallen victim to trafficking in persons. 18-06594