CEDAW/C/70/D/76/2014 grounds have not been established to support the claim that the deportation of the author to Somalia would constitute a violation of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee concerning admissibility 7.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the author claims to have exhausted domestic remedies and that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on those grounds. The Committee observes that the Ref ugee Appeals Board functions in practice as a court of appeal, in view of its nature as an independent, competent and quasi-judicial body, and, therefore, that no appeals against its decisions can be lodged. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from considering the matter. 7.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s view that the claims in the communication are manifestly unfounded and contrary to article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol owing to the lack of substantiation thereof. The Committee regrets the insufficient quality of the submissions and the repetition of the same allegations, with no further elaboration or information provided to better substantiate t he claims made by the author, despite the fact that she is represented by an attorney at law. In that regard, the Committee recalls the author’s claim that she fears that she will be at risk of violence from the family of her husband, the family of A., and Al-Shabaab if she is deported to Somalia because, three years after her husband disappeared, she began a relationship with A., now deceased, although she was still married. The author claims that, if the State party deports her to Somalia, she will be per sonally exposed to serious forms of gender-based violence, in violation of her rights under articles 2, 12 and 15 of the Convention. 7.5 The Committee refers to paragraph 21 of its general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, in which it noted that, under international human rights law, the non-refoulement principle imposed a duty on States to refrain from returning a person to a jurisdiction in which he or she might face serious violations of human rights, notably arbitrary deprivation of life or torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee further refers to paragraph 7 of its general recommendation No. 19, in which it noted that gender-based violence, which impaired or nullified the enjoyment by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms under general international law or under human rights conventions, was discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, and that such rights included the right to life and the right not to be subject to torture. In its general recommendation No. 35 (2017) on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, the Committee further developed its interpretation of violence against women as a form of gender-based discrimination. In paragraph 21 of the general recommendation, it reaffirmed the obligation of States parties to eliminate discrimination against women, including gender-based violence against women, and recalled 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. 18-13456 7/9