CEDAW/C/69/D/80/2015 party’s national legal order 5 and asserts that the State party does not consider the views of the Committee to be legally binding. 5.4 The author notes that, although the State party asserts that it refers to background reports, it has not elaborated on the treatment of gay people in Uganda. She adds that she would have no police protection, given that homosexuality is not accepted there. She further stresses that the fact that she lives openly as a lesbian in Denmark and participates in events with the local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community 6 would be brought to the attention of the Ugandan authorities. Furthermore, the test is whether she can return to her country of origin and continue living there openly as a lesbian, in the same manner as she does in Denmark. 5.5 The State party challenges the author’s credibility as a lesbian. At the same time, it denied the calling of a witness who would have been able to prove that the author is a lesbian. The author does not argue that the failure to call a witness constituted an instance of gender-based discrimination, but rather that it was a procedural violation affecting her right to fair proceedings. 5.6 In conclusion, the author reiterates that her removal to Uganda would expose her to serious forms of violence and constitute a breach of articles 1–3 of the Convention. She requests a new hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, in which her partner should be allowed to testify and her claims should be re -examined in the light of the Convention. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 8 November 2016, the State party submitted additional observations, in which it reiterates all its previous observations. It reaffirms that, based on an overall assessment, the Refugee Appeals Board determined that the author ’s submission, including her claim to be a lesbian, lacked credibility to the extent that it had to be dismissed in its entirety. 6.2 With regard to images submitted by the author to substantiate her claim that she would face a heightened risk of persecution in Uganda as a result of her participation in events relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in Denmark, the State party observes that the author submitted that material to the Board on 1 December 2014 for her hearing of 5 December, and that the Board was therefore aware of it when it made its decision. 6.3 With respect to general background information on the situation of gay people in Uganda, the State party observes that, even had the Board accepted that the author was a lesbian as a matter of fact, that alone would not justify the granting of residence rights under section 7 of the Aliens Act. The Board considered the current background information available, including a report on the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in Uganda published jointly by the Danish Immigration Service and the Danish Refugee Council on 6 January 2014, the 2013 Uganda country report on human rights practices published by the Department of State of the United States of America on 27 February 2014 and a report entitled “Uganda: claims based on sexual orientation”, a country information and guidance report published by the Home __________________ 5 6 18-06594 See CEDAW/C/DNK/CO/8, para. 11: “The Committee “regrets that, notwithstanding its previous recommendation (CEDAW/C/DEN/CO/7, para. 15), the State party decided in October 2014 not to incorporate the Convention into its national legal order. In that regard, the Committee is concerned that the State party’s Supreme Court has ruled that non incorporated treaties do not have the same status in national law as incorporated treaties. ” The author produces photographs from her participation in Copenhagen Pride in August 2014, as well as an undated statement from LGBT Asylum, according to which the author participated in a demonstration against the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act on 7 March 2014, in Aarhus Pride on 24 May 2014 and in Copenhagen Pride. 7/11