CEDAW/C/73/D/94/2015 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 The author’s counsel provided comments on 27 May 2016. He first notes the State party’s observation on the substantiation of the communication and claims that that issue seems closely linked to the merits of the case. He d isputes the State party’s argument that the author failed to establish a prima facie case for admissibility under the Convention and that there are no substantial grounds for believing that it would constitute a violation of the Convention if the author we re returned to Somalia. 5.2 The author’s counsel argues that the author’s forced return to a situation in which her physical integrity and her life are placed in manifest danger reaches the required threshold. In support of his argument, he refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in R.H. v. Sweden and Tarakhel v. Switzerland, 6 in which the Court found that the return to a dysfunctional society of a single woman without access to protection from a male network would attain the threshold of severity of conditions amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment required to come within the scope of the prohibition under article 3. 5.3 The author’s counsel reiterates that the Refugee Appeals Board has made no investigation to clarify the extent of the danger of the situation that the author is in and that he finds the account of the author highly credible. He adds that the author ’s removal to the Galguduud region of Somalia would be in violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the State party has not ensured that the deportation order does not frustrate effective recourse, which in the present case constitutes a violation of the Convention. 5.4 The author’s counsel maintains that the communication is admissible a nd that the Committee should sustain the decision on the granting of interim measures. Additional observations of the State party 6.1 The State party provided additional observations on 2 December 2016. It notes that the author, in her additional observations of 27 May 2016, seems to provide no essential new or specific information regarding her asylum case, as compared with the information included in the basis of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 4 September 2015. 6.2 As to the reference of the author’s counsel to R.H. v. Sweden, the State party refers back to its initial submission before the Committee. As for the reference to Tarakhel v. Switzerland, 7 the State party observes that the author has not described in detail the significance of the latter to her own case; in addition, that case is related to a removal to Italy and therefore has no relevance to the case at hand. 6.3 With regard to the allegation that the Refugee Appeals Board has failed to take into account the dangerous situation experienced by the author in Somalia, the State party maintains that it continues to find that the general conditions in Somalia, including the Galguduud region, are not of such a nature that any person returning to Somalia risks abuse, falling within section 7 of the Aliens Act. 6.4 The State party reiterates that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, and therefore the communication should be considered inadmissible as manifestly illfounded. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that it would constitute a violation of the Convention to return the author to Soma lia. __________________ 6 7 19-15435 See European Court of Human Rights, R.H. v. Sweden; and Tarakhel v. Switzerland (application No. 29217/12), judgment of 4 November 2014. See European Court of Human Rights, Tarakhel v. Switzerland. 9/11