CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015 within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, and that suc h rights include the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture. The Committee has further developed its interpretation of violence against women as a form of gender-based discrimination, in its general recommendation No. 35 (2017) on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, in paragraph 21 of which it reaffirmed the obligation of States parties to eliminate discrimination against women, including gender-based violence against women, stating that the obligation comprises two aspects of State responsibility for such violence, that which results from the acts or omissions of both the State party or its agents, on the one hand, and non-State actors, on the other. 10.7 With respect to the author’s claim that she will be subjected to violence by the Chechen authorities and by the rebels, the Committee notes that the asylum authorities found inconsistent the author’s divergent statements regarding the year in which her father was arrested by the authorities, the summons from the police and the date on which her second spouse was arrested. The Refugee Appeals Board noted that, on her asylum application form and in her first asylum interview, conducted by the Danish Immigration Service on 11 February 2014, the author described only the incident of her spouse’s arrest in September 2013, whereas in her second interview, on 11 August 2014, she described another incident in October 2005 when rebels came to her home. The Board also noted that, in the second interview, she affirmed that the rebels had visited her only once and at the hearing before the Board, she further stated that, from 2006 to December 2012, the authorities had summoned her about 19 or 20 times as they wanted her to become an informer. The Board also noted that the author stated that she had been raped by a number of officials on two occasions during those interrogations and that her head had been shaved once. 10.8 The Committee notes that the Refugee Appeals Board found that the author ’s statements seemed unlikely, non-credible and fabricated for the occasion, after taking into account that there might have been problems of interpretation and after recognizing that it might have been difficult for the author to talk openly about the rapes for cultural reasons. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the Board considered the general country information in its assessment, including the report published by the European Asylum Support Office in September 2014 and the two reports published by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre in 2014. The Committee further notes the State party’s observations, which remained undisputed by the author, that it seems unlikely that for about seven years the author was able to provide new information about the rebels every second month and that she was in possession of information that was relevant to the authorities, as she “appears to be a very low-profile individual” and to have no affiliation with the rebel movement. The Committee recalls that the author argued that in her first interviews she did not mention the incidents between 2005 and 2010 because in Chechen culture it is shameful for a victim to talk about the sexual abuse to which she has been subjected and that she felt safe talking about her experiences only when accompanied by her legal representative, who was a woman, at the hearing before the Board. 10.9 With regard to the author’s fear that her son would be taken away by the family of her second husband, the Committee notes, based on the finding of the immigration authorities regarding the author’s lack of contact with her second spouse or other family members and her failure to attempt to establish contact with them, that there are no tangible indications to show that if returned to the Russian Federation, the family of the author’s husband would obtain custody of her son. 10.10 The Committee observes that the author’s claims are in essence aimed at challenging the manner in which the State party’s authorities assessed the factual circumstances of her case, applied the provisions of the relevant legislation and reached their conclusions. The Committee recalls that, contrary to the author ’s 18-20327 9/10