CEDAW/C/72/D/96/2015 produced by the Danish Immigration Service, in which it is indicated that female family members of suspected rebels were at high risk of being raped, losing their jobs and having fabricated cases brought against them and that incidents of rape were rarely reported because the community’s knowledge of the rape caused further problems for the victim. 3.3 The author also claims that her deportation would constitute a violation of article 2 (f) of the Convention, as she is at “real risk” of an honour killing committed by her older brother. 8 She submits that the Chechen authorities do not effectively protect against such a risk, as an honour killing is considered a traditional ritual. The author does not provide further details as to her claim that her deporta tion would violate article 2 (e) and article 5 (a) of the Convention. 3.4 According to the author, the Refugee Appeals Board based its decision on a perceived lack of credibility of her version of events, without assessing the personal risk she might face if she were to be deported. She submits that the Board did not consider whether there had been an infringement of the Convention, even though she raised the issue in proceedings before it. 3.5 The author argues that, even though the Board, in its refusal, did not mention that she could take up residence elsewhere in the Russian Federation, this would be impossible for a Chechen woman in her situation. She refers to a report by the Danish Refugee Council, 9 in which it is indicated that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for Chechens to obtain residence elsewhere in the Russian Federation. The author indicates that Chechens must be registered with the local authorities in order to remain legally in a given place and that the Chechen authorities often sei ze identification documents to prevent such registration. Furthermore, she submits that, if a Chechen woman leaves her family and attempts to establish herself elsewhere, she would not be able to rely on support and would continue to be in trouble. 10 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 By a note verbale dated 18 November 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It requests that the Committee consider the admissibility of the communication separately from the merits. The State party submits that the communication should be considered inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, because it is manifestly ill-founded and the author has failed to establish a prima facie case fo r the purpose of admissibility. 4.2 The State party recalls the key facts of the case and the Refugee Appeals Board decision of 31 August 2013. 11 It also provides information on the organization and jurisdiction of the Board, the legal basis for its decisions and the proceedings before it. 4.3 The State party observes that the author fails to explain her claim that her deportation would violate article 2 (e) and article 5 (a) of the Convention. It submits that the author merely disagrees with the Refugee Ap peals Board assessment of her credibility and is requesting that the Committee reassess her case. The State party argues that she fails to identify any irregularity in the decision -making process or any considerations that the Board failed to properly take into account; rather, in submitting a communication to the Committee, she is seeking to use the Committee __________________ 8 9 10 11 4/11 The author states that the risk is especially high because her family comes from a “very orthodox and traditional village”. The author provides a copy of the report dated 30 November 2012. The author refers to the report dated 16 July 2014 by Landinfo, the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre. The State party provides a copy of the decision. 19-05867