CEDAW/C/76/D/122/2017 protection. She states that, during her stay in Italy, she was a victim of sexual violence in a refugee camp and lived on the streets for a certain period. The author argues that her asylum application was not assessed in the light of the evidence she submitted and that the Swiss authorities did not take into account the fact that she runs a real, personal and foreseeable risk of becoming a victim of serious forms of discrimination against women, in particular gender-based violence, and of being exposed to prostitution, given the migrant crisis in Italy and the lack of structures able to ensure her protection. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s contention that the author has not demonstrated that there are substantial grounds for believing that she is in danger of being subjected to serious gender-based violence if returned to Italy, where she was granted subsidiary protection in 2013; that there are no specific indications that the author was not afforded protection in Italy in the past; that the author could have access to the medical care she needs in Italy and is not, on the basis of her state of health, a vulnerable person whose health or life might be in danger if she were sent back; and that the authorities of the State party conducted the examination of the author’s asylum claims in a manner respecting its obligations under the Convention. Moreover, the Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the couple could reside in Italy, by way of an alternative; and that the author’s husband, who is gainfully employed, could initiate a family reunification procedure in Switzerland, the outcome of which the author could await in Italy, and that neither the complexity of the procedure, nor the uncertainty as to its length, are insurmountable obstacles to the couple’s ultimately leading a family life. 7.4 The Committee notes that, in substance, the author’s claims are aimed at challenging the manner in which the State party’s authorities assessed the circumstances of her case, applied the provisions of national law and reached their conclusions. The Committee recalls that it is generally for the courts of the States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence or the application of national law in a particular case, 32 unless it can be established that the evaluation was biased or based on gender stereotypes that constitute discrimination against women, was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 33 The Committee notes that nothing on file demonstrates that the examination by the authorities of the author’s claims regarding her fears as to the risks she would face upon her return to Italy suffered from any such defects. The Committee notes that, desp ite generalized statements made by the author regarding perceived inefficiencies in the asylum procedures of the State party, they are not alleged to have amounted to, or provoked, discrimination or rendered decisions made by authorities arbitrary in the a uthor’s case. Moreover, it is for each sovereign State party to determine the nature, structure and procedures of its own asylum system, as long as basic procedural guarantees set down in international law are provided. 7.5 In the light of the foregoing, while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with regard to the general situation of services for asylum seekers and vulnerable persons in Italy, the Committee considers that the authorities of the State party gave sufficient consideration to the author’s asylum applications and offered her reasonable alternatives. The Committee therefore considers that the authorities of the State party examined the author’s asylum applications in a manner respecting the State party’s obligations under the Convention. The Committee notes, however, that the State party is obliged to ensure that the Italian authorities are __________________ 32 33 20-11108 See, for example, R.P.B. v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011), para. 7.5. See, for example, N.Q. and S.A. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CEDAW/C/63/D/62/2013), para. 6.6. 15/16