CEDAW/C/73/D/94/2015 Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 The author’s counsel provided comments on the State party’s additional observations on 25 May 2017. The counsel expresses serious concern about the State party’s argument regarding the admissibility of the communication. He states that the author did establish a prima facie admissible case for the purpose of admissibility under the Optional Protocol and that she would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence if she were to be returned to Somalia, as well as the risk of being married forcibly, in violation of article 16 (b) of the Convention. 7.2 The author’s counsel contends that the State party has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of determining the communication to be inadmissible and has also not established why the author’s circumstances of being subjected to a forced marriage would not constitute a breach of articles 3 and 16 (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The author’s counsel also refers to a recent resolution of the European Parliament, adopted on 18 May 2017, 8 in which the Parliament indicated that, given the current circumstances of ongoing security problems in Somalia and a high risk of famine, in any scenario, returns should always be voluntary, and called for a greater sharing of responsibilities when it came to hosting refugees and establishing additional methods to help refugees to access third countries, including in the European Union. 7.4 The author reiterates that the planned deportation violates articles 3, 5 and 16 (b) of the Convention and that all domestic remedies have been exhausted, given that the decision of the Refugees Appeals Board cannot be appealed in court under the Aliens Act. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 8.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 66 of its rules of procedure, the Committee may decide to examine the admissibility of the communication together with its merits. 8.2 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. 8.3 The Committee notes that the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol on the basis that the author’s claims are manifestly ill-founded and not sufficiently substantiated. 8.4 The Committee notes that, in substance, the author’s claims are aimed at challenging the manner in which the State party authorities assessed the circumstances of her case, applied the provisions of national law and reached conclusions. The Committee recalls that it is generally for the authorities of Sta tes parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence or the application of national law in a given case, 9 unless it can be established in particular that the evaluation was biased or based on gender stereotypes that constitute discrimination __________________ 8 9 10/11 See European Parliament resolution of 18 May 2017 on the Dadaab refugee camp (2017/2687(RSP)), part 7. See, for example, R.P.B. v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011), para. 7.5; N.M. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/67/D/78/2014), para. 8.6; and M.K.M. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015), para. 10.10. 19-15435