CEDAW/C/70/D/76/2014 had provided them with pictures of scars on her back, which were allege dly the result of the ill-treatment in question. The Committee further notes that the author submitted that claim and the pictures in question only at the stage of appeal to the Refugee Appeals Board, the Board considered her explanations in justification of the delay to be unsatisfactory and illogical, and the Board’s overall assessment of the author’s allegations was that they were insufficiently substantiated. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that Al-Shabaab no longer controls the region in question. In addition, the Committee considers that there is no information before it that would permit it to conclude that the Board refused to order an examination for signs of torture for the author because she is a woman. 7.13 In the light of the foregoing, and while not underestimating the legitimate concerns with regard to the general human rights situation in Somalia, in particular for women, the Committee considers that no information on file permits it to conclude that the State party’s authorities failed to give sufficient consideration to the author ’s application for asylum, or that the examination of her asylum case otherwise suffered from any procedural defect. In view of the considerations above, the Committee considers that the author has failed to establish that, if deported to Somalia, she would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender -based violence. 8. The Committee therefore decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol; (b) 18-13456 This decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 9/9