CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015 victim and exclusion from society. 8 She submits that it is understandable that she explained all the facts only at the hearing of the Refugee Appeals Board, at which she was accompanied by her own legal representative, who was a woman. 5.4 The author rejects the argument of the State party that States are best placed to assess the factual circumstances of a case. She considers that the Committee is better placed, as a body that deals with issues and situations faced by women and has a full overview of all countries. 5.5 The author further challenges the argument that national authorities a re best placed to assess facts and evidence in a particular case. She underlines that she was subjected to several brutal rapes and to cruel and inhuman treatment amounting to torture and, therefore, the assessment of her case should have been conducted by people with a thorough training in assessing torture victims. 9 5.6 The author submits that she has not been in contact with her family and her spouse because it may endanger them. She explains that she cannot tell her family about the repeated rapes because, in Chechen culture, a woman who has been raped is stigmatized and cast to the margins of society if the rape becomes known and her family will also be stigmatized and isolated. 10 5.7 The author claims that the State party does not refer to the violation of article 16 (1) (d) that she alleged in her first submission. She repeats that, if returned to the Russian Federation, the family of her husband will take her son away from her. 5.8 The author concludes that she faces a real, personal and foreseeable risk of being subjected to very serious forms of gender-based violence and discrimination in the Russian Federation. Additional observations of the State party 6.1 By a note verbale dated 19 August 2016, the State party submitted additional observations. 6.2 The State party rejects the author’s allegations that it did not consider her claim of a violation of article 16, as it has provided sufficient arguments to sus tain that it did not violate articles 2 (d)–(f), 5 (a) and 16 (1) (d) in its observations of 3 August 2015 (see paras. 4.4–4.8). 6.3 It recalls that the author’s account of the grounds for her asylum application cannot be considered as fact. 11 It also recalls its endorsement of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board, in which it found that the author had failed to substantiate that, if returned to the Russian Federation, she would experience conflicts with the authorities, the rebels, her family-in-law or her own family. It refutes the argument that the Board failed to take sufficiently into account the author ’s difficulty in talking about having been raped. __________________ 8 9 10 11 6/10 The author refers to the report of the European Asylum Support Office provided in her first submission: EASO Country of Origin Report: Chechnya — Women, Marriage, Divorce and Child Custody (September 2014). The author refers to the decision adopted by the Committee against Torture in Rong v. Australia (CAT/C/49/D/416/2010) to support this claim. To support this claim the author refers to the report of the European Asylum Support Office that she provided in her initial communication: EASO Country of Origin Report: Chechnya — Women, Marriage, Divorce and Child Custody (September 2014). The State party refers to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 16 January 2015, according to which the majority of the members found that the author’s statements seemed unlikely, non-credible and fabricated for the occasion. 18-20327