CEDAW/C/72/D/96/2015 with the Committee’s request for interim measures not to deport the author pending the examination of her case. Consideration of admissibility 10.1 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 examine the admissibility of the communication together with its merits. 10.2 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. 10.3 The Committee notes that the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, on the basis that the author’s claims are manifestly ill-founded and not sufficiently substantiated. 10.4 The Committee also notes that, in substance, the author’s claims are aimed at challenging the manner in which the State party’s authorities assessed the circumstances of her case, applied the provisions of national law and reached conclusions. The Committee recalls that it is generally for the authorities of States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence or the application of national law in a particular case, 32 unless it can be established that the evaluation was biased or based on gender stereotypes that constitute discrimination agai nst women, was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 33 The Committee notes that nothing on file demonstrates that any such deficiencies characterized the examination by the authorities of the author’s claims regarding her fears as to the risks that she would face if she were to return to Chechnya. The Committee notes that, despite generalized statements made by the author’s counsel regarding perceived inefficiencies in the asylum procedures of the State party, they are not alleged to have amounted to, or provoked, discrimination or rendered decisions made by the authorities arbitrary in the author’s case. Moreover, it is for each sovereign State party to determine the nature, structure and procedures of its own refugee determination system, provided that the basic procedural guarantees set out in international law are respected. 10.5 The Committee further notes that it must give important weight to the assessment conducted by the national authorities, unless it was found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In the present case, the Committee considers that nothing on file leads it to conclude that the Danish immigration authorities, and the Refugee Appeals Board in particular, have failed in their duties when examining the author’s case, or that their decisions were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 10.6 The Committee notes that, in the present case, after addressing the claims as submitted by the author, the State party’s immigration authorities found that her story lacked credibility owing to both inconsistencies and a lack of substantiation. The Committee considers that nothing on file demonstrates that there were irregularities in the examination by the Danish authorities of the author ’s claims that could lead to the conclusion that the State party’s authorities had failed in their duty to properly assess the risks that the author would face if deported to the Russian Federation. __________________ 32 33 10/11 See, for example, R.P.B. v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011), para. 7.5; N.M. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/67/D/78/2014), para. 8.6; and M.K.M. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015), para. 10. See, for example, N.Q. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CEDAW/C/63/D/62/2013), para. 6.6; and N.M. v. Denmark, para. 8.6. 19-05867