CEDAW/C/69/D/80/2015 Further submissions from the parties 7.1 On 16 March 2017, the author submitted additional information, in which she disagrees with the background information provided by the State par ty, in particular the claim that there is no routine or systematic persecution. She stresses that homosexuality is criminalized in Uganda and refers to a bill before Parliament on the prohibition of what are termed “unnatural sexual practices”. She also mentions the cases 9 of two lesbians from Uganda who were relocated to European countries after being recognized as refugees by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Kenya. 7.2 On 7 July 2017, the State party submitted that it had no further observations and relied on its previous submissions. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 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, the Committee may decide to consider the admissibility of the communication separately from its merits. 8.2 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. 8.3 The Committee notes that the author claims to have exhausted domestic remedies and that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on that ground. The Committee observes that, according to the information available to it, appeals against decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be lodged before national courts. Accordingly, the Commi ttee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from considering the matter. 8.4 The Committee recalls the author’s claim that her life would be in danger at the hands of the police and ordinary people if she were returned to Uganda given that her sexual orientation is known as a result of an incident that occurred when she was working in a bar in Uganda in 2011, which was followed by a visit by the police to her mother’s house. She has also claimed that, because of her subsequent involvement in public demonstrations relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender matters in Denmark, she has attracted the attention of the Ugandan authorities. She therefore claims that, if the State party returned her to Uganda, she would be personally exposed to a risk of serious forms of gender-based violence, as defined under articles 1–3 of the Convention. She also asserts that the State party should have independently investigated the risk that she faces in Uganda and referred explicitly to the Convention during proceedings regarding her application for asylum. She has also questioned the fairness of those proceedings, because she was not allowed to call a witness and the decisions taken by the authorities were initially addressed to another individual. 8.5 The Committee refers to its general recommendation No. 32 (2014), in which it states that, “under international human rights law, the non-refoulement principle imposes a duty on States to refrain from returning a p erson to a jurisdiction in which he or she may face serious violations of human rights, notably arbitrary deprivation of life or torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ” (para. 21). The Committee recalls, in particular, that “gender-related claims to asylum __________________ 9 18-06594 Cases referred to in the press in 2016. 9/11