CEDAW/C/69/D/80/2015 submits that the risk of such violence must be real, personal and foreseeable . In that regard, the State party asserts that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of the admissibility of her communication to the Committee under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, on the grounds that she has n ot substantiated that she would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if she were returned to Uganda. 4.5 Should the Committee find the communication to be admissible and proceed with its consideration of the merits, the State party asserts that the author has not sufficiently substantiated that she would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if returned to Uganda. 4.6 With respect to the author’s identity, the State party submits that, when considering the author’s asylum application, the Danish Immigration Service wrongly determined that the author’s identity was that of a Ugandan national, A.N., born on 12 November 1973, who had entered Denmark on 6 April 2012 in possession of a valid travel document and a valid business visa issued by the Embassy of Norway in Kampala. 4.7 On 31 January 2013, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the author ’s asylum application under section 7 of the Aliens Act. The author appealed against that decision and, on 18 April 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board remitted the case to the Service for reconsideration and further investigation into the author ’s identity. On 28 May 2014, the Service again rejected the author’s asylum application. The decision was again wrongly addressed to A.N. because, owing to a regrettable error, the author’s name had not been corrected in the Service’s aliens register. The author appealed against that decision, and the Board’s decision of 5 December 2014 also wrongly bore the name of A.N. However, the author’s statement on her correct identity was accepted as fact, and the decision was corrected three days later with her real name, A.S. 4.8 The State party further submits that the issue of the author’s identity has been sufficiently examined by the national authorities, that her statement on her identity has been accepted as fact and that she has failed to substantiate any breach of the Convention on account of that issue. Her claim that the f ailure to reregister her name constitutes discrimination against women is completely unsubstantiated and, in the opinion of the State party, evidently incorrect. 4.9 Regarding the author’s grounds for asylum, the State party recalls that the Board dismissed, in its entirety, the author’s statement concerning those grounds, including her sexuality and her reason for leaving Uganda. In its assessment of the author ’s credibility, the Board emphasized that the author had made inconsistent, elaborative and sketchy statements on crucial elements of her grounds for asylum and that parts of her statements also appeared unlikely. The Board considered, in particular, the author’s statements with respect to when and how she had discovered that she was a lesbian and on her sexual relationships with other women. In that respect, the State party recalls that, during the asylum proceedings, the author made the following statements: (a) On 7 January 2013, she told the Danish Immigration Service that she had discovered that she was a lesbian in 2007, when some women had come to the bar and asked her whether she would like to become involved in a lesbian sexual relationship. She had first watched two of the women have sex before deciding to start having relationships with women herself. She had had one lesbian relationship, with a woman named J.N., which had lasted from 2007 to 2011; (b) In a brief submitted for the purpose of the hearing before the Board on 5 December 2014, the author explained that she had had sex with anoth er girl, 4/11 18-06594