CEDAW/C/73/D/94/2015 against women, was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 10 The Committee notes that nothing on file demonstrates that any such deficiencies characterized the examination by the authorities of the author ’s claims regarding her fears regarding the risks that she would face if she were to return to Somalia. The Committee also notes that, notwithstanding the generalized statements made by the author’s counsel regarding perceived inefficiencies in the asylum procedures of the State party, they are not alleged to have amounted to, or provoked, discrimination or to have rendered decisions made by the authorities arbitrary in the author ’s case. Moreover, and provided that they respect the procedural guarantees as set out under international law, sovereign States are in principle free to determine the nature, structure and procedures of their domestic systems for the determination of refugee status. 8.5 The Committee notes that it must give important weight to the assessment conducted by the national authorities, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 11 It notes that, after addressing the claims as submitted by the author, the State party’s immigration authorities found that her story lacked credibility owing to both inconsistencies and a lack of substantiation. The Committee considers that nothing on file demonstrates that there were irregularities in the examination by the Danish authorities of the author ’s claims that could lead to the conclusion that the State party authorities failed in their duty to properly assess the risks that the author would face if deported to Somalia. Accordingly, and while remaining preoccupied by the general situation of human rights in Somalia, in the present case, the Committee considers that nothing on file leads it to conclude that the Danish immigration authorities, including the Refugee Appeals Board, have failed in their duties when examining the author ’s case, or that their decisions were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, contrary to the provisions of the Convention. 9. The Committee therefore decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol; (b) This decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. __________________ 10 11 19-15435 See, for example, N.Q. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CEDAW/C/63/D/62/2013), para. 6.6; and N.M. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/67/D/78/2014), para. 8.6. See, for example, CEDAW/C/72/D/96/2015. 11/11