CEDAW/C/73/D/94/2015 4.15 The State party also finds it unlikely that that Al-Shabaab would wait until six years after taking control of the town, which the author described as a very small village, to challenge the marriage and that it would choose to postpone the author ’s detention twice. Furthermore, with regard to the secret agreement, the National Police was in charge of returning unsuccessful asylum seekers and may have concluded an agreement with the Somali authorities to repatriate nationals not entitled to stay in Denmark. That is irrelevant to the case at hand, however. 4.16 In connection with the general human rights situation in Somalia, the State party notes that the author has claimed that, as a single woman without a social network, and owing to her clan affiliation, she would be at risk of gender-based persecution in Somalia. The State party notes that the infor mation provided in June 2014 by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regarding its position on returns to southern and central Somalia was known to the Refugee Appeals Board at the time of its decision of 5 September 2015 and was taken into account in the Board’s assessment, as were other background documents. However, the State party finds that none of the background information currently available can lead to the conclusion that the general situation in the Galguduud region of S omalia is of such a nature that, for that reason alone, the author would face a risk of persecution if returned there that would justify asylum. 4.17 The State party adds that, taking into account the most recent information from the report of the Secretary-General on Somalia (S/2015/702) and the report of September 2015 of the Immigration Service fact-finding mission to Nairobi and Mogadishu, it appears that, although Al-Shabaab is present in the Galguduud region, it is not the main cause of conflict and violence there. The State party also makes reference to a map of the security situation, published by the Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum on 12 October 2015, in which it also appears that the Galguduud region is controlled by government forces. 4.18 The State party adds that, in its judgment in R.H. v. Sweden, 5 the European Court of Human Rights reasoned that it may be concluded that a single woman returning to Mogadishu without access to protection from a male network would face a real risk of living in conditions constituting inhuman and degrading treatment under article 3 of the Convention. The judgment, however, in the State party’s opinion, cannot lead to a different assessment in the present case, because the author has failed to substantiate that she would find herself in a situation with no male support network. 4.19 According to the State party, in the present case, the Refugee Appeals Board has taken into consideration all the relevant information. The present communication has not brought to light any new information substantiating that the author would face a risk of persecution or abuse justifying the granting of asylum. The State party refers to the views of the Human Rights Committee in P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/ 2272/2013, para. 7.3), in which it recalled its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it was found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, and that it was generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk existe d. The State party also draws attention to the views adopted by the Human Rights Committee in K v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014, para. 7.4), in which it recalled that it was generally for the organs of State parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk existed, unless it could be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. In the same case, the Refugee Appeals Board thoroughly examined each of the author ’s __________________ 5 19-15435 See European Court of Human Rights, R.H. v. Sweden (application No. 4601/14) judgment of 10 September 2015, para. 70. 7/11