CEDAW/C/72/D/96/2015 during which she was given the opportunity to present her views, both in writing and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel. T he State party reiterates that the author would not risk persecution or abuse justifying asylum should she be returned to the Russian Federation and that her deportation would not constitute a violation of the Convention. 6.7 The State party rejects the author’s claim that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to take the Convention into account in its assessment of her case. It reiterates that the Board considers the Convention as a standard part of its assessments and that the fact that the Board made no explicit reference to the Convention in its decision does not mean that its provisions were not taken into account. The State party refers to the views adopted by the Committee in the case of P.H.A. v. Denmark, 27 in which it is indicated that the Committee considered that the author had not substantiated how the reference to the Convention raised issues separate from those already considered by the Board in the context of the author’s asylum claim. 6.8 The State party maintains that the author has failed to estab lish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility and that, pursuant to article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, it is manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. Should the communication be declared admissible, the author ’s return to the Russian Federation would not constitute a violation of the Convention. The State party further draws attention to the statistics on the jurisprudence of the Danish immigration authorities, which show significant recognition rates for asylum claims submitted by members of the 10 largest national groups of asylum seekers that were decided by the Board between 2013 and 2015. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 28 February 2017, the author submitted her comment s on the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication. 7.2 She reiterates that the Chechen authorities continue to visit her family in Chechnya and to summon her for questioning. She indicates that she has difficulty talking to her mother, who fears that her phone is being tapped and is afraid of the author’s older brother. The author recalls that there is a risk that her older brother may persecute her, as he perceives that her rape by the Chechen authorities is a disgrace to the family. Furthermore, the author indicates that her younger brother, who was arrested and detained at the same time as she was, has not yet been released. Neither she nor her mother know his exact whereabouts, whether he remains imprisoned or whether he is even alive. 7.3 The author indicates that her older brother was detained twice, on 23 December 2015 and on 28 June 2016, 28 because of her. 29 According to the author, the Chechen authorities have harassed and threatened him since she left Chechnya, calling him by telephone to summon him for questioning, and he has since gone into hiding. She also indicates that a new chief of the Chechen district police unit has exacerbated the situation. She refers to a report by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo, dated 4 October 2016, in which it is indicated that family members and supporters of insurgents are still subjected to reactions from the Chechen __________________ 27 28 29 8/11 The State party refers to P.H.A. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/65/D/61/2013), para. 6.7. In that case, the Committee concluded that that part of the communication was insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and therefore inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. The author’s counsel informs the Committee that she did not receive the information about the author’s older brother earlier, as her previous meeting with the author was shortly before Christmas 2015. The author does not provide further details. 19-05867