CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015 based discrimination in its general recommendation No. 35 (2017) on gender -based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19. In paragraph 21 thereof, it reaffirmed the obligation of States parties to eliminate discrimination against women, including gender-based violence against women, stating that the obligation comprised two aspects of State responsibility for such violence, that which resulted from the acts or omissions of both the State party or its actors, on the one hand, and non-State actors, on the other. A State party would therefore violate the Convention if it returned a person to another State where it was foreseeable that serious gender-based violence would occur. Such a violation would also occur when no protection against the identified gender-based violence can be expected from the authorities of the State to which the person is to be returned. What amounts to serious forms of gender-based violence depends upon the circumstances of each case and must be determined by the Committee on a case-by-case basis at the stage of consideration of the merits, provided that the author has made a prima facie case by sufficiently substantiating her allegations. 15 7.9 In the present case, the author submits that, by returning her and her daughters to Jordan, the State party would expose them to serious forms of gender-based violence inflicted by her husband and his family. In view of the information provided, the Committee considers that the author’s claims are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it proceeds with the examination of the merits of the communication. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the li ght of all the information made available to it by the author and by the State party, in accordance with the provisions of article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that she was subjected to gender-based violence during her marriage and that she and her daughters were subjected to threats and abuse from the author’s husband and his family. The Committee also takes note of the author’s assertion regarding the intensified conflict between her and her husband and her fear that, if deported, she and her daughters would continue to be exposed to gender-based violence and abuse by her husband and his family and to be under their control, in the absence of a social network there. She will have no prospect of seeking protection from the Jordanian authorities, owing to discriminatory legal practices in Jordan and the powerful status of her husband ’s family. In addition, her status as a Palestinian refugee renders her even more defenceless before the Jordanian authorities. The Committee further takes note of the alleged conviction of the author in Jordan for having kidnapped her own daughters and the arrest warrant subsequently issued against her. The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that her eldest daughter was forcibly married and that, upon return, her middle daughter would be also subjected to forced marriage. 8.3 The Committee recalls the State party’s contention that all of the author’s allegations were thoroughly examined by the State party immigration au thorities. It observes that they were dismissed in their entirety, because the authorities found that the author’s account lacked credibility, owing to a number of factual inconsistencies __________________ 15 10/13 See A. v. Denmark, para. 8.6. 19-15427