CCPR/C/114/D/2428/2014 4.5 On 17 June 2014, the author brought the case before the Committee under article 7 of the Covenant, with a request for interim measures. Accordingly, on 19 June 2014, the national police suspended the time limit for the author’s and her daughters’ departure from Denmark until further notice, to comply with the Committee’s request. 4.6 The State party recalled that the refugee appeals board, in its decision of 15 November 2013, had determined that the author had not been a member of any political or religious association or organization. In its assessment, the refugee appeals board found that the applicant had made inconsistent and thus non-credible statements about her conflicts with Al-Shabaab and that her statements appeared fabricated for the occasion. The refugee appeals board further found that it was unlikely that Al-Shabaab would continue to persecute the author considering her very modest role and that even if part of the applicant’s statements was accepted as a fact, the author would no longer be of any interest to Al-Shabaab. As regards the general situation in Mogadishu, the Board observed that it appeared from the background information available about Southern and Central Somalia that the security situation in the area had improved considerably since the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgement in Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom,6 including a reduction in the number of attacks on and killings of civilians and a considerable reduction in armed fighting. The refugee appeals board therefore determined that the author had failed to render probable that she would be at a real risk of persecution or abuse in the event that she were returned to Somalia. It further determined that the fact that she is a single woman with children could not lead to a different assessment of the case. 4.7 The State party further informed the Committee that, in response to a question from the immigration and integration affairs committee of the Danish parliament, the Ministry of Justice had ordered the suspension of all pending forced returns under the Dublin Regulation from Denmark to Italy of families with minor children, where the family comprised either a child under five years old, or a family member with a serious physical or mental disorder, pending a decision in the Tarakhel v. Switzerland case. However, the State party stressed that, in the present case, the deportation decision was not to be undertaken under the Dublin Regulation and that the author had indicated on 10 December 2013 that she voluntarily sought to go back to Italy, and had later confirmed this on 2 June 2014. 4.8 In the light of the author’s present communication before the Committee, in which she alleges that her deportation to Italy would constitute a breach of article 7 of the Covenant by Denmark, the State party deems her preliminary consent to return to Italy to have been withdrawn. 4.9 The State party first notes that the author has never claimed, before the Danish authorities, that her return to Italy would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Thus, the State party authorities have never had the chance to rule upon this claim. Consequently, the State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Additionally, it should be declared manifestly ill-founded as the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for admissibility purposes, to be a victim of any of the Covenant rights in her communication. 4.10 On the merits, the State party submitted that the refugee appeals board determined on 15 November 2013 that the author was not in need of protection with respect to the alleged risk faced in Somalia. The author has not challenged this conclusion before the Committee. Furthermore, the author subsequently demanded to return to Italy. The State party authorities accordingly arranged her removal. Thus, the planned deportation of the 6 6 Applications Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07. Judgement of 28 June 2011.