CEDAW/C/70/D/76/2014 and Political Rights had never been incorporated into the legislation of Denmark; similarly, the legislation had not been brought into line with the Convention. 5.3 On the issue of whether, during the asylum proceedings, the author should have been given a medical examination for signs of torture, she notes that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board rejecting her claim was not unanimous. A minority of one or two members found reason to conduct such an examination. 10 5.4 The author claims that the mere fact that Somalia has not signed the Convention is justification for her fear of what will befall her if she is deported. She recalls that, in its decision, the Refugee Appeals Board did not mention the C onvention, although her counsel had raised the issue before the Board. According to the author, that indicates a lack of interest on the part of the authorities of Denmark in respecting their international obligations. The author argues that, in the event of a conflict regarding interpretation of the facts, it is the primary responsibility of the State party to prove that decisions of the national courts have referred to the Convention. 5.5 In order to underline the difficult situation of single women in S omalia, the author cites a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights. 11 She also claims that the State party cannot submit that she has failed to prove the allegations of torture because, when she asked for an examination, her request was reject ed by the Board. State party’s additional observations 6.1 By note verbale of 18 October 2016, the State party informed the Committee that, in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in R.H. v. Sweden, the immigration authorities of Denmark decided to reopen the author’s case and order an oral hearing before a new panel for clarification of the author ’s family and other support networks in her country of origin. On 15 July 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board once again upheld the decision of the Immigration Service. Taking into account the oral observations of the author, the Board considered that she had failed to explain how she would be at risk if returned to Somalia. In that respect, the Board insisted that the statements of the author throughout the process seemed to be fabricated for the occasion. In addition, the Board found that the author had failed to substantiate that she would find herself in the position of a single woman, with no “male social network”, if deported to her country of origin. The Board concluded, therefore, that the author should be presumed to have access to support from both family and other social networks, including a “male social network”, for her protection. 6.2 In its decision of 15 July 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board again refused to initiate an examination of the author for signs of torture, and it confirmed the decision of the Immigration Service. 6.3 The State party has submitted additional general information about the situation in Somalia. On the basis of a report of the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of 2016, 12 the State party affirms that Al-Shabaab no longer controls major cities in the region of Shabelle Hoose. 6.4 The State party reiterates that the communication should be declared inadmissible, given that the claims therein are manifestly unfounded. Should the Committee find it admissible, the State party maintains the view that sufficient __________________ 10 11 12 6/9 The author did not provide the Committee with the source of that information. See footnote 6 above. Home Office of the United Kingdom, “Country information and guidance: Somalia — security and humanitarian situation in south and central Somalia ” (July 2016). 18-13456